Ska 11 Posted April 8, 2011 Ok so I just got this from Mary and I was staggered at how close this really is to the gen. I'll be putting together a proper review of this in the next couple of weeks but I saw a review of the gen online and thought I'd take some quick comparison shots. I'll let the photos do the talking..... Hope you liked it Ska Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mulder 0 Posted April 8, 2011 Thanks Chris. Nice photos. Nice watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruhck 0 Posted April 8, 2011 What are the flaws on this rep? If any The only thing I could spot was the bracelet, the gen seems to be better fitted (rep middle links stick out more), otherwise looks near perfect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luthier 1 Posted April 8, 2011 Chris, is it your photography, or replica really looks much better than gen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matlow 0 Posted April 8, 2011 Lol i think the rep looks better than the gen, how much is this rep?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeNnY 29 Posted April 8, 2011 I liked it, thanks pal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mulder 0 Posted April 8, 2011 I actuall agree with Luth. The rep looks better than the Gen. Now that is strange Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeNnY 29 Posted April 8, 2011 gen owner don't know how to photograph or do proper macro shoots ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsomers 0 Posted April 8, 2011 Must get this watch! Nice photos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eiderdaus 0 Posted April 8, 2011 dial got happy feet, and the same problem as per most of the rlx reps, the end links holes are badly shaped and not correct (but minor ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matlow 0 Posted April 8, 2011 dial got happy feet, and the same problem as per most of the rlx reps, the end links holes are badly shaped and not correct (but minor ) My Gen seamaster has happy feet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eiderdaus 0 Posted April 8, 2011 dial got happy feet, and the same problem as per most of the rlx reps, the end links holes are badly shaped and not correct (but minor ) My Gen seamaster has happy feet this was related to the comparism of a 213.30.42.40.01.001 not to any seamaster on earth.....and I guess you are talking about a 2254.50.00....cannot compare a daytona with a sub Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dingle 57 Posted April 8, 2011 nice watch and great comparison. well done Chris. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powderfreak 0 Posted April 8, 2011 Wow, that rep is indeed better than the gen, lol... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kolchak 17 Posted April 12, 2011 shit..what happened to photos? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcagara 0 Posted May 2, 2011 my my dear! lovely watch comparison mate! i've been wanting to get the blue version of this fantastic timepiece, REP that is LOL! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bill_097 0 Posted January 4, 2012 Hi, I was looking at the above photos, which are a great comparison btw, but noticed on Mary's site that her Seamaster is in white font whereas the gen (which I assume to mean genuine) has the Seamaster font in red; are the pics on Mary's site incorrect? I've read in the trusted sites list that the site is not maintained regularly and/or is outdated. Any ideas on the above? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilikewatches99 0 Posted January 4, 2012 The older models were in white, then Omega changed to red so both are correct but red is newer. As for differences, the subdial hands are short on the rep and I believe the second hand is 1mm short. The minute hand also looks 1mm or so short on the rep. The happy feet have been fixed in new reps I think. I just bought one in blue which does not have happy feet. The spring bar cutouts in the band should be squared not rounded. They appear to be so in this rep but it could be the photo angle. One of my earlier sm reps had rounded holes but I filed them to square them some. There is a clear difference in the band, quality and stamping. It varies too. I have had two bands, one with screws and one with pins. The one with pins was cheap feeling and had a lot of play in it. The one with screws was tighter and felt closer to gen, though still not as well made. The perl is a dead giveaway. The rep is clearly low and looks offset to the left. The rep is missing a number on the case bottom, not sure if that was fixed on the new reps or not. On the newest ones without happy feet I think you can put a gen bezel, crystal, hands and have a killer watch. That is my plan for my watch anyway. I am keeping my rep dial(without happy feet) and reluming the rep dial. It should be close to perfect. I am not going for the crown/he replacements on mine, not worth the cost/trouble I think. I couldnt tell any difference on the photos here either between the rep and gen crown/he. Hi, I was looking at the above photos, which are a great comparison btw, but noticed on Mary's site that her Seamaster is in white font whereas the gen (which I assume to mean genuine) has the Seamaster font in red; are the pics on Mary's site incorrect? I've read in the trusted sites list that the site is not maintained regularly and/or is outdated. Any ideas on the above? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hascho 0 Posted January 4, 2012 Nice watch, but some easy tell flaws. Pearl is a big tell; also short subdial hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Member X 91 Posted January 4, 2012 Those subdial hands must be at least 0.5mm too short, rubbish!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteveA 308 Posted January 4, 2012 I think the difference in appearance of bracelet and case can be sorted by light polishing with cape cod which brings it closer to the gens smooth brush appearance.I did that with my OMG GMT and it looks virtually the same now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
