Rolex - I just realised that the real thing is unmistakable

[Duzza 182]

funny, i'm gonna go against the grain and agree with the OP.

Especially with the new models.

 

Old ones, heck no, as RolexAddict says most of the reps look better than gen vintage models...

most vintages are a hodgepodge of sometimes not-period-correct parts.

 

and 50 percent of what dude is talking about is psychosomatic. it's in his head.

But i think he may be right about some of it, at least as a concept.

These tiny things, the bezel not being 100 percent perfect, the dial printing being just slightly off, etc...

 

As pointed out by another poster, these very very slight changes in finish are multiplied once you start talking about real high end watches...

meaning Patek, VC, AP etc.

 

If you've ever even once held a real AP in your hand...even the 800-900 dollar reps look bad...

The real AP movement is just a serious thing of beauty.

A real Patek ceramic hand painted dial is just incredible.

 

No hate on anyone who rocks these as reps, they're great designs and if you want to rock 'em, rock 'em.

No, no one's gonna call you out or grab your wrist and make inspections...

The only time that would happen is if you're at an AD, or if you're around a bunch of WIS and decide you want to lie to them

 

I wouldn't advise doing either of those things.

 

A lot of Panerai reps are 99 percent of the gen.

The TAG quartz chrono reps are 99 percent of the gen.

etc. etc. etc.

 

Basically I get what dude is saying...he says there are differences...and they're perceptible to him...

...and he doesn't feel comfortable rocking that brand rep in an environment where there's a lot of gens around.

 

Right on.

This.

[markeym3 2]

I had a gen and rep breitling super avenger ,, gave them both to the QC guys who inspect parts for rolls Royce and they could not see a difference ,, the feel and operation was just the same ,, in this case anyhoo ,,

But saying that some gens do have a crispness to them ,, but the reps are getting better ,,

[JBJtw 1]

I was under the impression the 904L steel that Rolex used isn't as scratch resistant as 316L but is much more resistant to corrosion, acid and chloride etc. Much better for diving with?

I may be wrong.

[Duzza 182]

I was under the impression the 904L steel that Rolex used isn't as scratch resistant as 316L but is much more resistant to corrosion, acid and chloride etc. Much better for diving with?

I may be wrong.

My own experience is the Rolex steel is far more resistant to scratching

[R1evans 0]

I was under the impression the 904L steel that Rolex used isn't as scratch resistant as 316L but is much more resistant to corrosion, acid and chloride etc. Much better for diving with?

I may be wrong.

My own experience is the Rolex steel is far more resistant to scratching

Same here.

[Bozrep 0]

904 steel is far better than 316f or l, more scratchresistant, corrosion resistance is better, but for the use of a watch 316 is a very good steel, used by many watchmakers. I ordered a Sub, noob v5, made of 316F, I have no worries about the steel so far

[canamfan 0]

I'd like a job at your work place

[Frankt8242 1]

The only REAL "Xfactor" that Rolex has is "20X" which represents the ratio of their cost to their REAL value..!!

[myaz 3]

Some reps are spot on and some are not. It's your call and your level of comfort.

 

To wit, differences in the outward visual appearance (movement excepted) between the better super reps and gens are largely psychosomatic as posted by others above.

That said, I have worn in public, largely because what others think is their problem, but I'd never, even for a split second, think that a rep Lange or Patek looks anywhere as refined as the gen from close.

 

At that, all tells disappear at more than a couple feet's viewing distance. What is left is the internal angst that your neighbor is wearing the "real" thing and you're not. Go easy on yourself. ^_^

[nunu78 1,743]

Buy a gen dial, crystal and maybe a bracelet.

 

Boom. X Factor, at the fraction of the cost.

 

Or what TB said.

 

V

cant agree more, Noob V5 sub with Gen xtal and bezel is virtually indistinguishable from the gen.

[black263 228]

Buy a gen dial, crystal and maybe a bracelet.

 

Boom. X Factor, at the fraction of the cost.

 

Or what TB said.

 

V

cant agree more, Noob V5 sub with Gen xtal and bezel is virtually indistinguishable from the gen.

True. Both look fake.

[Robin195959 2]

I think it's the price Tag that makes the real difference.at £5k you are unmistakably in an AD buying a gen.

[Daywatch 4]

The TC dial has a "blacker black" dial and shinier, more sparkling dot markers (hand vs. machine polished) and the same X- or Wow-factor.

Still this happens under certain lighting conditions only or in direct comparison between both. When just one of them is on the wrist, the TC

or the BP Seadweller are the same to me, both nice watches and both look as good as a used gen Omega or gen Breitling.

 

Imho the X-factor op noticed comes mainly from the combination of Gen + brand new (less than a Year old) in the right environment.

[simonbolivar 1]

Agree with OP... I've been fortunate enough to own a few gen Rolex through the years and still have a couple. To me, reps of modern Rolex come close, but there's always something not quite right. Could be the steel, crystal clarity, bezel teeth, or a combination of things. But I am always disappointed after buying a Rolex rep.

 

Better to stick with Pams and a couple of other brands/models that are nearly imperceptible to gen.

[Realism 72]

is this a dick comparison thread?

[narikaa 129]

NEVER have I understood all this nonsense

 

 

If you really do get all misty eyed and spiritual, transcending into some auto erotic state of mental masturbation over one of these ( albeit overpriced) tool watches

 

 

Then

 

 

In the name of god go buy yourself one and rent a room

 

 

The levels of rapture people go into is surely worth the small expenditure no?

 

 

 

 

.

[Mr Stubbs 0]

NEVER have I understood all this nonsense

 

 

If you really do get all misty eyed and spiritual, transcending into some auto erotic state of mental masturbation over one of these ( albeit overpriced) tool watches

 

Then

 

In the name of god go buy yourself one and rent a room

 

The levels of rapture people go into is surely worth the small expenditure no?

 

 

 

 

.

Reg, may I use this in my signature? I think this is the most insightful and funniest post I've ever seen!

[narikaa 129]

Mais oui

 

 

 

(but seriously , asking I.P. rights holder's permission on a replica forum )

 

 

 

 

.

[tesmith2112 0]

I have noticed this "x-factor" but usually only in higher end watches like Audemars and Patek, etc, in comparison to their rep counterparts. The X-Factor can be attributed to a dozen or so small details, which, when combined, create an almost undefineable appearance of high quality. It's just the general quality of materials, attention to detail, hand crafting, and pride, that goes into the production of high end gens. I personally think though that as far as many Rolex are concerned, many of the super-reps are virtually indistinguishable from the gen. Maybe this is due to the large production numbers of Rolex when compared to the relatively low production numbers of Audemars and Patek, in comparison. More attention can be afforded to a smaller production run, and thus, a higher quality, or bigger "X-Factor", which is harder to replicate. I used to wear my AP 15400 every day. then I saw a gen and ever since I've not been able to bring myself to wear it. I used to think it was absolutlely beautiful, the beveled edges that catch the sunlight, the unique raised square guilloche in the dial, the design of the bracelet, the etchings in the rotor... now I just see a lump of steel when I look at it. I still wear my Datejust though

 

I agree with almost all of this, except, I think only the Rolex dive and GMT watches are hard to distinguish rep from gen. I think the DateJust, DayDate, Milgauss, and Daytona's are pretty easy to spot up close. When I say up close, I mean in my hand looking at it. On a moving wrist, very tough.

 

Agree with OP... I've been fortunate enough to own a few gen Rolex through the years and still have a couple. To me, reps of modern Rolex come close, but there's always something not quite right. Could be the steel, crystal clarity, bezel teeth, or a combination of things. But I am always disappointed after buying a Rolex rep.

 

Better to stick with Pams and a couple of other brands/models that are nearly imperceptible to gen.

 

+1 on this.

[Rg0576 0]

is this a dick comparison thread?

 

If so, your cat takes first prize.

 

Love the avatar.

[markeym3 2]

I agree with reg ... it is nice to compare the reps to gens but if the small differences bother the owner so much then yeah just get the gen ...

Maybe the rep game is not for you ...

[trailboss99 994]

The only REAL "Xfactor" that Rolex has is "20X" which represents the ratio of their cost to their REAL value..!!

 

[machiavegli 6]

God Reg I hate to sound like a groupie, but +1,000,000. It's a little like the old Protestant work ethic where I was raised... You may work hard, but still have a underlying feeling that others are working harder, and see right though you...

 

-Mach

[northantsrich 1]

I have noticed this "x-factor" but usually only in higher end watches like Audemars and Patek, etc, in comparison to their rep counterparts. The X-Factor can be attributed to a dozen or so small details, which, when combined, create an almost undefineable appearance of high quality. It's just the general quality of materials, attention to detail, hand crafting, and pride, that goes into the production of high end gens. I personally think though that as far as many Rolex are concerned, many of the super-reps are virtually indistinguishable from the gen. Maybe this is due to the large production numbers of Rolex when compared to the relatively low production numbers of Audemars and Patek, in comparison. More attention can be afforded to a smaller production run, and thus, a higher quality, or bigger "X-Factor", which is harder to replicate. I used to wear my AP 15400 every day. then I saw a gen and ever since I've not been able to bring myself to wear it. I used to think it was absolutlely beautiful, the beveled edges that catch the sunlight, the unique raised square guilloche in the dial, the design of the bracelet, the etchings in the rotor... now I just see a lump of steel when I look at it. I still wear my Datejust though

 

I agree with almost all of this, except, I think only the Rolex dive and GMT watches are hard to distinguish rep from gen. I think the DateJust, DayDate, Milgauss, and Daytona's are pretty easy to spot up close. When I say up close, I mean in my hand looking at it. On a moving wrist, very tough.

 

Agree with OP... I've been fortunate enough to own a few gen Rolex through the years and still have a couple. To me, reps of modern Rolex come close, but there's always something not quite right. Could be the steel, crystal clarity, bezel teeth, or a combination of things. But I am always disappointed after buying a Rolex rep.

 

Better to stick with Pams and a couple of other brands/models that are nearly imperceptible to gen.

 

+1 on this.

+1 on this also. The only GOOD rep Rolex in my opinion are TCs, the new sub v5 is pretty good and the new DSSD if they get the clasp engraving right would also be pretty close.

[FunnyStarSystem 7,538]

The delicious irony of all this is that probably half the watches the OP thinks are gens are actually reps, maybe more. Thailand, right? Rich people buy reps too, especially when they're drowning in them.