- 26/12/12
- 53
- 15
- 8
Omega Aqua Terra 8500 Gray Dial Rep vs. Gen Comparison
My new Aqua Terra arrived the other day, with the decorated Japanese Miyota movement designed to look like the Omega 8500. I thought it would be good to do a side-by-side comparison of the two.
Thanks to sead/supermirrors for the usual great transaction.
Gen is on left or top, Rep on right except when stated.
The Case: Finishing and polishing are excellent, very similar or exact to gen, with no major noticeable differences as far as I can tell.
The Crystal: The rep has an excellent crystal with great Anti-Reflective coating. Compared side-by-side in person, they both seem extremely clear. The rep certainly does not display any of that “obvious rep because of bad AR†deficiency. This is good because one of great things about the gen AT is the quality of the crystal, which really makes the unique dial and the markers “popâ€. I’m happy to say that the rep demonstrates this quality as well. However, in difference from the gen, the rep has more of a slight tint on the AR, whereas the gen is colorless.
The Dial & Hands: The gray color is good, close to gen. It is kind of hard to determine this though because of the way both watches dials shift shade from light to dark depending on the light and angle. There are some more noticeable differences though. The reps’ teak pattern is deeper and possibly slightly wider (in terms of the width of the cuts) than the gen’s, which is subtler. The most noticeable difference here is probably the hour hand. On gen it is more beveled, with the bevel sloping up some distance before becoming flat. The rep, is more flat, demonstrating a short bevel that is hard to see with less of a three dimensional effect. The date wheel and date font are comparable, at least on this version of the AT. Dial printing is slightly thicker and of higher quality on the genuine. All in all though, this is a very accurate try.
The Movement – Caseback Display: Obviously, compared side by side, there are some differences. I will try and list the biggest ones to the extent of my knowledge. Obviously I know that some of these cannot be corrected. I also would like to commend the factory for putting in effort into the movement, instead of just slapping a decorated rotor on as we’ve come to see. Some of these differences would be able to be corrected, some most likely not.
Gen
Rep
The Movement – Feeling & Operation: Feels like a 21J. Not much more to say than that. The gen moves like butter when operating & set the time. The rep…not so much. Also doesn’t have the Hour Vision (date jump) feature like the gen does. The actual beat of the movement and the sweep of the second hand actually doesn’t look that different between the two. I think they are probably closer now than if the rep would have been a standard ETA clone.
Gen
Rep
The Bracelet & Clasp – The bracelet could certainly be better on the rep. It is very flexible like the gen, but does not have that same quality feel. It just feels cheaper. The clasp is pretty solid, has some slightly different markings from the gen. It closes securely and solidly, and holds ok. Also, the Omega logo on the gen is more deeply engraved and thicker in width.
Conclusion – This AT is a good piece that will not be called out on the wrist. It has approaches gen look and feel for the most part. The price may be off-putting for the movement, but it has a quality feel that is demanded of a rep in this price range.
My new Aqua Terra arrived the other day, with the decorated Japanese Miyota movement designed to look like the Omega 8500. I thought it would be good to do a side-by-side comparison of the two.
Thanks to sead/supermirrors for the usual great transaction.
Gen is on left or top, Rep on right except when stated.
The Case: Finishing and polishing are excellent, very similar or exact to gen, with no major noticeable differences as far as I can tell.
The Crystal: The rep has an excellent crystal with great Anti-Reflective coating. Compared side-by-side in person, they both seem extremely clear. The rep certainly does not display any of that “obvious rep because of bad AR†deficiency. This is good because one of great things about the gen AT is the quality of the crystal, which really makes the unique dial and the markers “popâ€. I’m happy to say that the rep demonstrates this quality as well. However, in difference from the gen, the rep has more of a slight tint on the AR, whereas the gen is colorless.
The Dial & Hands: The gray color is good, close to gen. It is kind of hard to determine this though because of the way both watches dials shift shade from light to dark depending on the light and angle. There are some more noticeable differences though. The reps’ teak pattern is deeper and possibly slightly wider (in terms of the width of the cuts) than the gen’s, which is subtler. The most noticeable difference here is probably the hour hand. On gen it is more beveled, with the bevel sloping up some distance before becoming flat. The rep, is more flat, demonstrating a short bevel that is hard to see with less of a three dimensional effect. The date wheel and date font are comparable, at least on this version of the AT. Dial printing is slightly thicker and of higher quality on the genuine. All in all though, this is a very accurate try.
The Movement – Caseback Display: Obviously, compared side by side, there are some differences. I will try and list the biggest ones to the extent of my knowledge. Obviously I know that some of these cannot be corrected. I also would like to commend the factory for putting in effort into the movement, instead of just slapping a decorated rotor on as we’ve come to see. Some of these differences would be able to be corrected, some most likely not.
- The balance wheel is not directly at 6.
- In fact is seems like the whole movement is shifted slightly, because “Barrel One†and “Barrel Two†are also shifted.
- The balance wheel is gold instead of black. – Seems like this could be an easy fix.
- The gems are more recessed on the gen.
- The Waves pattern on the entire movement is shallower, less deep than the gen. This makes it harder to see in certain light. Also, the gen gets a rougher engraving near the “deeper†part of the waves than the rep does, possibly leading the great visual prominence on the gen.
- Various screws, positions, etc. (See pictures)
Gen
Rep
The Movement – Feeling & Operation: Feels like a 21J. Not much more to say than that. The gen moves like butter when operating & set the time. The rep…not so much. Also doesn’t have the Hour Vision (date jump) feature like the gen does. The actual beat of the movement and the sweep of the second hand actually doesn’t look that different between the two. I think they are probably closer now than if the rep would have been a standard ETA clone.
Gen
Rep
The Bracelet & Clasp – The bracelet could certainly be better on the rep. It is very flexible like the gen, but does not have that same quality feel. It just feels cheaper. The clasp is pretty solid, has some slightly different markings from the gen. It closes securely and solidly, and holds ok. Also, the Omega logo on the gen is more deeply engraved and thicker in width.
Conclusion – This AT is a good piece that will not be called out on the wrist. It has approaches gen look and feel for the most part. The price may be off-putting for the movement, but it has a quality feel that is demanded of a rep in this price range.