Hi Guys,
I am a new member interested in the Submariner. While going through the posts, I found this one.
Who Has the Best Sub" Blind Rate
https://forum.replica-watch.info/fo...ho-has-the-best-sub-blind-rate-need-your-help
The ratings are closed but I felt like it is a good exercise for a noob like me. I believe this will help me to better evaluate a watch. Some categories felt easier and some I did not know what to exactly look for.
1. Rating Front View
Objective: The main focus is here the overall genuine look of the dial, dial color especially in contrast to bezel color and bezel inserts.
Dial color: A=7, B=6, C=10, D=9, E=8
Evaluation: It seems most are close to the dark rich color of the genuine.
Dial printing & Date: A=5, B=6, C=7, D=4, E=4
Evaluation: After the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] high marks, this was a shocker. None really had a perfect clean centered date font. The letter spacing on the “Oyster Perpetual Date” was not exact on some.
Minute markers vs. center of letter: A=9, B=5, C=7, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: I guess this is a pass and fail test. This is maybe one of the fastest ways to spot a fake? The 5 pointers clearly failed.
It seems A and C are the winners of this 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Rating, however they all have at least 1 obvious flaw. None of the watches are perfect, it seems to be an issue quality control as the technology is there.
2. Solid End Link
Objective: Height difference of the SEL and the case lugs.
A=8 B=7 C=5 D=5 E=5
Evaluation: Honestly, not even sure what I am looking at as they all seem to be similar. Are we looking here for the exact measurement? Is that even possible to do with eyesight? I mainly looked at the left lug, this seems to be the part with the highest deviation.
3. Pearl
Objective: Pearl shape, color and the pearl holder.
A=5, B=5, C=5, D=5, E=6
Evaluation: None really coming close, when the pearl color is right the inlay is wrong, and those that got it nice and clean like E, the pearl color is a little off.
4. Cyclops
Objective: anti-reflective color coating, AR effect and distortion.
A=6, B=4, C=7, D=5, E=6
Evaluation: Not exactly sure how to evaluate but C seems to be the cleanest, no distortion and AR. E has the best borders on the date.
5. Hands
Objective: shape of the hands and the lume application, plus the second hand pinion.
A=8, B=5, C=6, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: The B&D had copper coloring on middle screw, not sure if it was a light effect. C had a different screw top.
6. Bezel Insert
Objective: insert color, bezel numbers font and the platinum plating color
A=7, B=6, C=6, D=6, E=7
Evaluation: The font seemed not as wide as genuine on some, not sure due to photo. Not sure about color, as genuine did not seem popping as other genuine pictures. A looked cleanest and white was popping out.
7. Rehaut
Objective: rehaut finish (brushing) and the rehaut engraving font and color.
Question? Do all letters have to be centered at minute marker or just R at left side of rehaut every 5 minute marker and X at right side of rehaut every 5 minute marker?
A=5, B=5, C=6, D=4, E=7
Evaluation: All crowns were really bad and fonts bad, E was the best but the coloring was off. This is laser etched, this should be more precise? I think this is another fail / pass test. Very easy to check and see if it is a fake.
8. Bezel Teeth and Crystal
Objective: teeth shape, size and position, crystal height, rim finishing and the gap distance between bezel insert and crystal.
A=3, B=6, C=6, D=6, E=3
Evaluation: Not really sure how to check size of teeth shape, E seems to have a different shape. All others seem ok. Can’t tell a big difference on rim finish and gap. What should I look for? A was obviously bad. Others were ok, could not really tell the difference.
9. Lug Fitment
Objective: pay attention to the gap between the lug and the SEL
A=7, B=7, C=5, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: Not really sure how to do this, the closer the better? A & B seem to have tighter fit.
10. Lug Engraving
Objective: font and engraving depth
A=3, B=7, C=4, D=8, E=3
Evaluation: This was easy.
11. SEL Engraving
Objective: font and engraving depth
A=3, B=3, C=7, D=3, E=3
Evaluation: This was easy too. Even Noobs can spot good lasering.
12. Caseback Teeth
Objective: sharpness of the teeth (cut)
A=7, B=5, C=6, D=7, E=7
Evaluation: This looked easy but not sure my evaluation is right. E is very clean, looks perfect but seems to be wider than original. Not sure about the impact of this deviation.
13. Clasp
Objective: workmanship and engravings of the clasp
A=5, B=6, C=4, D=7, E=4
Evaluation: Crown looks good on most but they all have problems with the Rolexsa and W of Swiss.
My Conclusion
This took some time but it was 100% worth it, I learned so much during the process. Especially the emphasis on visual analysis and recognition, showed me the good and the bad. You will never get this perspective on store photos. It seems most of the problems come from engraving and they are very easy to spot once you know what to look for. SEL, Case and Lugs can be barely differentiated with eyesight. The finish / brushing looked good on most. Other parts like Date type / font, markers seem to be just related to poor workmanship or quality control. I now understand better what some people were talking about in some posts.
Looking forward to the results, wondering why they were not posted yet as new watches have been already introduced.
I am a new member interested in the Submariner. While going through the posts, I found this one.
Who Has the Best Sub" Blind Rate
https://forum.replica-watch.info/fo...ho-has-the-best-sub-blind-rate-need-your-help
The ratings are closed but I felt like it is a good exercise for a noob like me. I believe this will help me to better evaluate a watch. Some categories felt easier and some I did not know what to exactly look for.
1. Rating Front View
Objective: The main focus is here the overall genuine look of the dial, dial color especially in contrast to bezel color and bezel inserts.
Dial color: A=7, B=6, C=10, D=9, E=8
Evaluation: It seems most are close to the dark rich color of the genuine.
Dial printing & Date: A=5, B=6, C=7, D=4, E=4
Evaluation: After the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] high marks, this was a shocker. None really had a perfect clean centered date font. The letter spacing on the “Oyster Perpetual Date” was not exact on some.
Minute markers vs. center of letter: A=9, B=5, C=7, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: I guess this is a pass and fail test. This is maybe one of the fastest ways to spot a fake? The 5 pointers clearly failed.
It seems A and C are the winners of this 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Rating, however they all have at least 1 obvious flaw. None of the watches are perfect, it seems to be an issue quality control as the technology is there.
2. Solid End Link
Objective: Height difference of the SEL and the case lugs.
A=8 B=7 C=5 D=5 E=5
Evaluation: Honestly, not even sure what I am looking at as they all seem to be similar. Are we looking here for the exact measurement? Is that even possible to do with eyesight? I mainly looked at the left lug, this seems to be the part with the highest deviation.
3. Pearl
Objective: Pearl shape, color and the pearl holder.
A=5, B=5, C=5, D=5, E=6
Evaluation: None really coming close, when the pearl color is right the inlay is wrong, and those that got it nice and clean like E, the pearl color is a little off.
4. Cyclops
Objective: anti-reflective color coating, AR effect and distortion.
A=6, B=4, C=7, D=5, E=6
Evaluation: Not exactly sure how to evaluate but C seems to be the cleanest, no distortion and AR. E has the best borders on the date.
5. Hands
Objective: shape of the hands and the lume application, plus the second hand pinion.
A=8, B=5, C=6, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: The B&D had copper coloring on middle screw, not sure if it was a light effect. C had a different screw top.
6. Bezel Insert
Objective: insert color, bezel numbers font and the platinum plating color
A=7, B=6, C=6, D=6, E=7
Evaluation: The font seemed not as wide as genuine on some, not sure due to photo. Not sure about color, as genuine did not seem popping as other genuine pictures. A looked cleanest and white was popping out.
7. Rehaut
Objective: rehaut finish (brushing) and the rehaut engraving font and color.
Question? Do all letters have to be centered at minute marker or just R at left side of rehaut every 5 minute marker and X at right side of rehaut every 5 minute marker?
A=5, B=5, C=6, D=4, E=7
Evaluation: All crowns were really bad and fonts bad, E was the best but the coloring was off. This is laser etched, this should be more precise? I think this is another fail / pass test. Very easy to check and see if it is a fake.
8. Bezel Teeth and Crystal
Objective: teeth shape, size and position, crystal height, rim finishing and the gap distance between bezel insert and crystal.
A=3, B=6, C=6, D=6, E=3
Evaluation: Not really sure how to check size of teeth shape, E seems to have a different shape. All others seem ok. Can’t tell a big difference on rim finish and gap. What should I look for? A was obviously bad. Others were ok, could not really tell the difference.
9. Lug Fitment
Objective: pay attention to the gap between the lug and the SEL
A=7, B=7, C=5, D=5, E=5
Evaluation: Not really sure how to do this, the closer the better? A & B seem to have tighter fit.
10. Lug Engraving
Objective: font and engraving depth
A=3, B=7, C=4, D=8, E=3
Evaluation: This was easy.
11. SEL Engraving
Objective: font and engraving depth
A=3, B=3, C=7, D=3, E=3
Evaluation: This was easy too. Even Noobs can spot good lasering.
12. Caseback Teeth
Objective: sharpness of the teeth (cut)
A=7, B=5, C=6, D=7, E=7
Evaluation: This looked easy but not sure my evaluation is right. E is very clean, looks perfect but seems to be wider than original. Not sure about the impact of this deviation.
13. Clasp
Objective: workmanship and engravings of the clasp
A=5, B=6, C=4, D=7, E=4
Evaluation: Crown looks good on most but they all have problems with the Rolexsa and W of Swiss.
My Conclusion
This took some time but it was 100% worth it, I learned so much during the process. Especially the emphasis on visual analysis and recognition, showed me the good and the bad. You will never get this perspective on store photos. It seems most of the problems come from engraving and they are very easy to spot once you know what to look for. SEL, Case and Lugs can be barely differentiated with eyesight. The finish / brushing looked good on most. Other parts like Date type / font, markers seem to be just related to poor workmanship or quality control. I now understand better what some people were talking about in some posts.
Looking forward to the results, wondering why they were not posted yet as new watches have been already introduced.
