- 18/1/11
- 19,845
- 419
- 83
Evolution of P.3000 Clone movements - From Clone1 to Clone 4
I decided to start this thread when I saw the release, yesterday, of SF PAM 587 Q-series fitted with a P.3000 Clone movement which showed a new “jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge.
We could say it is a new improved P.3000 Clone4 movement from the last Clone3.
I would like to take this opportunity to show the current situation of P.3000 Clone movements, because there are often some misunderstandings among the fans and even among the dealers regarding this matter.
At the end of 2013 the first P.3000 Clone movement was released. I really don’t know, aside commercial tricks, why dealers are calling this new movement P.3000 Super-clone, because this nice movement is not even a true Clone, but a good copy, since it is not made copying part by part from the gen, as true Clones like A6497 and A7750.
The new movement, as above said, is a good approach the the gen P.3000, with more than acceptable accuracy and features. Indeed this Clone movement, fitted with two barrels, gets a proved Power Reserve of more than 120 hrs. (even many times more 150 hrs) strongly superior to the 3 days of the gen.
To analyze or making a review of this P.3000 Clone is not the purpose of this thread. In order to get a very good info about this movement you can read a fantastic review by Rolexman here:
http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/166048-movement-review-pam-372-p3000-super-clone/
http://forum.replica-watch.info/vb/showthread.php?t=168936&p=1704599#post-1704599
As you can see, from above review, P.3000 Clone seems a completely new and good movement, nicely manufactured, not exactly copied from the gen maybe due to patent problems, since P.3000 movement is not old enough to allow the real Clone manufacture.
My real purpose is to review the EVOLUTION of the external decoration on bridges - inscriptions and “jewels†decoration- made by the maker from the first Clone1 (December 2013) fitting the PAM 372 to the last Clone4 fitting the new SF PAM 587 (December 2014).
- P.3000 Clone1
Clone 1 was released, as above said, in December 2013 fitting a new version of PAM 372. This Clone1 showed very inaccurate inscriptions on bridges, with different placement and wrong fonts. “Jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge was nonexistent, leaving aside a little jewel (seemingly real) for the escapement wheel at the bottom of the bridge.
You can see the noticeable inaccuracy of inscriptions and the lack of “jewels†decoration in comparison with Clone2 and gen, in the Figure after the Clone2 description.
- P.3000 Clone2
Clone1 was improved with the Clone2 from the release of SF PAM 448 in June 2014. This improvement was not announced by dealers, but from this moment all P.3000 Clone were manufactured with this improvement. And this new Clone2 was installed in all reps with P.3000 Clone.
Clone2 had very accurate and nice inscriptions on bridges, with correct fonts and very good placement in relation with the bridges. Clone2 “jewels†decoration remained the same as Clone1. No improvements in this regard.
In below Figure we can see the comparison between Clone1, Clone2 and gen. It is obvious the inaccuracy of Clone1 inscriptions and the improvement got by Clone2 is clearly showed.
CLONE1 – CLONE2 – GEN COMPARISON
- P.3000 Clone3
From the release of SF PAM 424 in September 2014 a new P.3000 Clone3 movement is used. Some dealers are wrongly using the name of Clone2 for this movement, because they forget the release of above mentioned Clone2 with improved inscriptions.
Clone3 has correct inscriptions on bridges, like Clone2, but it adds a more correct “jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge.
This new “jewels†decoration, although better than previous that was nonexistent, is still quite inaccurate, because the placement is completely wrong, the “jewels†are bigger than gen and the colour is clearly different and lighter.
We can see in below Figure the comparison between Clone2, Clone3 and gen. It is clearly noticeable the wrong new “jewels†and the inaccuracies above mentioned.
CLONE2 – CLONE3 – GEN COMPARISON
- P.3000 Clone4
In December 2014 the new Clone4 is released fitting the new SF PAM 587.
Movement maker is now using a more accurate size of decoration “jewels†and better colour (although far from perfect). “Jewels†placement is now really improved in relation with the bridges, it is really close to the gen and close to the best possible achievable from the shape of clone movement bridges.
Below Figure clearly shows the great improvement or accuracy achieved by the “jewels†decoration of Clone4 in relation to Clone3 from the direct comparison with the gen.
“JEWELS†DECORATION – CLONE3 – CLONE4 – GEN COMPARISON
Below Figure shows the overall comparison of Clone3, Clone4 and gen. We can see the noticeable improvement regarding accuracy of “jewels†and overall placement.
CLONE3 – CLONE4 – GEN COMPARISON
Unfortunately, as many times happens, this improvement goes in parallel with some worsening. In this case thickness, sharpness and even the colour of the bridges inscriptions seems worse than in Clone3. Clone4 inscriptions seem less clean, with uneven thickness and with a lighter blue.
Let’s hope this will be just due to pics of the first protoptypes and the final batch will be correct
********************************************
I hope this thread clarifies the current situation about P.3000 Clone movements
Thanks for reading
ALE
I decided to start this thread when I saw the release, yesterday, of SF PAM 587 Q-series fitted with a P.3000 Clone movement which showed a new “jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge.
We could say it is a new improved P.3000 Clone4 movement from the last Clone3.
I would like to take this opportunity to show the current situation of P.3000 Clone movements, because there are often some misunderstandings among the fans and even among the dealers regarding this matter.
At the end of 2013 the first P.3000 Clone movement was released. I really don’t know, aside commercial tricks, why dealers are calling this new movement P.3000 Super-clone, because this nice movement is not even a true Clone, but a good copy, since it is not made copying part by part from the gen, as true Clones like A6497 and A7750.
The new movement, as above said, is a good approach the the gen P.3000, with more than acceptable accuracy and features. Indeed this Clone movement, fitted with two barrels, gets a proved Power Reserve of more than 120 hrs. (even many times more 150 hrs) strongly superior to the 3 days of the gen.
To analyze or making a review of this P.3000 Clone is not the purpose of this thread. In order to get a very good info about this movement you can read a fantastic review by Rolexman here:
http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/166048-movement-review-pam-372-p3000-super-clone/
http://forum.replica-watch.info/vb/showthread.php?t=168936&p=1704599#post-1704599
As you can see, from above review, P.3000 Clone seems a completely new and good movement, nicely manufactured, not exactly copied from the gen maybe due to patent problems, since P.3000 movement is not old enough to allow the real Clone manufacture.
My real purpose is to review the EVOLUTION of the external decoration on bridges - inscriptions and “jewels†decoration- made by the maker from the first Clone1 (December 2013) fitting the PAM 372 to the last Clone4 fitting the new SF PAM 587 (December 2014).
- P.3000 Clone1
Clone 1 was released, as above said, in December 2013 fitting a new version of PAM 372. This Clone1 showed very inaccurate inscriptions on bridges, with different placement and wrong fonts. “Jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge was nonexistent, leaving aside a little jewel (seemingly real) for the escapement wheel at the bottom of the bridge.
You can see the noticeable inaccuracy of inscriptions and the lack of “jewels†decoration in comparison with Clone2 and gen, in the Figure after the Clone2 description.
- P.3000 Clone2
Clone1 was improved with the Clone2 from the release of SF PAM 448 in June 2014. This improvement was not announced by dealers, but from this moment all P.3000 Clone were manufactured with this improvement. And this new Clone2 was installed in all reps with P.3000 Clone.
Clone2 had very accurate and nice inscriptions on bridges, with correct fonts and very good placement in relation with the bridges. Clone2 “jewels†decoration remained the same as Clone1. No improvements in this regard.
In below Figure we can see the comparison between Clone1, Clone2 and gen. It is obvious the inaccuracy of Clone1 inscriptions and the improvement got by Clone2 is clearly showed.
CLONE1 – CLONE2 – GEN COMPARISON
- P.3000 Clone3
From the release of SF PAM 424 in September 2014 a new P.3000 Clone3 movement is used. Some dealers are wrongly using the name of Clone2 for this movement, because they forget the release of above mentioned Clone2 with improved inscriptions.
Clone3 has correct inscriptions on bridges, like Clone2, but it adds a more correct “jewels†decoration on CAL.P.3000 bridge.
This new “jewels†decoration, although better than previous that was nonexistent, is still quite inaccurate, because the placement is completely wrong, the “jewels†are bigger than gen and the colour is clearly different and lighter.
We can see in below Figure the comparison between Clone2, Clone3 and gen. It is clearly noticeable the wrong new “jewels†and the inaccuracies above mentioned.
CLONE2 – CLONE3 – GEN COMPARISON
- P.3000 Clone4
In December 2014 the new Clone4 is released fitting the new SF PAM 587.
Movement maker is now using a more accurate size of decoration “jewels†and better colour (although far from perfect). “Jewels†placement is now really improved in relation with the bridges, it is really close to the gen and close to the best possible achievable from the shape of clone movement bridges.
Below Figure clearly shows the great improvement or accuracy achieved by the “jewels†decoration of Clone4 in relation to Clone3 from the direct comparison with the gen.
“JEWELS†DECORATION – CLONE3 – CLONE4 – GEN COMPARISON
Below Figure shows the overall comparison of Clone3, Clone4 and gen. We can see the noticeable improvement regarding accuracy of “jewels†and overall placement.
CLONE3 – CLONE4 – GEN COMPARISON
Unfortunately, as many times happens, this improvement goes in parallel with some worsening. In this case thickness, sharpness and even the colour of the bridges inscriptions seems worse than in Clone3. Clone4 inscriptions seem less clean, with uneven thickness and with a lighter blue.
Let’s hope this will be just due to pics of the first protoptypes and the final batch will be correct
********************************************
I hope this thread clarifies the current situation about P.3000 Clone movements
Thanks for reading
ALE
