Good day, friends.
Continuing the discussion of past releases, I will begin to concretize the individual models that you liked the most, but I will start with what I liked the most lol.
My favorite 2020 release for a number of reasons that I have already mentioned in the related topic, and I will not repeat myself.
Gen watches are not yet very common, and quite expensive, because there are not very many photos on the network yet, but I tried to find all the angles necessary for comparison from open sources and sources, and since, of course, I did not ask anyone for permission to do this, I apologize if something is wrong.
Excellent photos rep, in turn, kindly provided to all of us well-known veteran pam selection, dadog13 , for which he once again a special thanks!
At the same time, you need to understand that all my conclusions and opinions are based on the photos that I saw and show you. I do not have this watch, neither gen nor rep, so something may be subjective, and I will definitely mention this, but you also have to remember, especially when the comparison is about color.
Well, let's start:
Initially, there were the following questions to this model:
- The case is probably made of gray carbotech, instead of a new panerai material called fibratech, and is likely to have a different color, texture, weight and overall feel, both visually and tactile.
- The dial is similar in color, but does not have a pronounced gradient, and has a slightly different dynamics of transition from lighter blue to darker.
- Flaws in the CG and crown shape.
- Backcase diameter.
- I've heard the opinion that rep has double-sided AR, while gen has only on the inner surface of the crystal.
I have collected enough material to check some of these statements, and see if something else is added to this list.
To begin with, the general impression is:
REP:
GEN:
Of course, I don't have a photo of gen from all sides at right angles, but there is an opportunity to see, at least from the front, how different they can look in different lenses, different people.
Now let's go over in detail all the elements separately, and see what you can see:
1. Case:
- The material of the case appears to be a gray carbotech, not fibratech like gen.
Few people have touched and know the tactile differences, and I do not know the differences in mass, but the texture and color are clearly different, which is not difficult to see in the photo.
I picked up a couple of the most indicative, in my opinion, by which you can see that the rep material has a more uniform pattern, in contrast to the rather variegated gen, while the finishing itself also seems to be different.
This is especially noticeable in CG, so I'll show it as an example:
Gen:
Rep:
- Traditionally, carbotech VSF cases do not have through holes for spring bars, this is not conspicuous on the wrist, given that the outer holes are approximately correct, but it is visible under direct light, and most importantly, not functional.
It should be recalled here that the carbotech models, and then fibrotech, use springbars instead of screw rods, and when putting on all the straps that you have in the house, when trying to figure out what is best for this watch, it makes sense to pay attention so that there are no straps in the straps. steel tubes, otherwise the choice of the strap for the near future, until you stock up on courage, patience and a sharp instrument, will be determined.
Here the photos will show little, but you can see, if you wish, how the bottom of the hole is visible on the rep, well, and gen, to understand that the holes are located correctly on the lugs from the outside, and the diameter of the hole is also correct.
- Rep:
- Gen:
- Midcase shape.
In general, everything is good, the differences are minimal, within the framework of what we were always given with other models, and it is difficult to evaluate them without identical gen / rep photos, not to mention parallel comparison.
Also, the material gives almost no reflections, which generally makes it difficult to assess the fine specifics of rounded surfaces.
However, what can be highlighted.
To begin with, immediately stipulate that despite the fact that this is a new 1950 44mm case, caliber p.9010, it has thick lugs, like all models from carbotech, ceramics and now also fibratech. I think this is due to the fact that they did not dare to make thin structures, from experimental materials, taking into account the fact that they have a load from the strap tension, and there is a need to drill a through hole (but this is just my suggestion).
In any case, the factories did everything right.
Regarding the geometry and lines of the case, I must warn you that without a photo gen at right angles, and ideally, without a parallel comparison, and even without a rep in your hands, even more so, it is critically difficult to determine the correspondence, due to the fact that most of the lines are smooth and complex.
Without the conditions described above, I will not undertake to assert 100%, but here are my thoughts based on a separate consideration of particular elements, within the framework of proportions.
I will make a reservation that this is not something that can be clearly understood and seen.
In general, the midcase gen is usually more "bellied", due to the fact that the corners of the "bevels" on the upper side are more rounded towards the bottom, as well as longer curvatures at the bottom, which makes the base slightly shorter, and the middle of the sides is wider than the top and bottom.
In view of all of the above, it seems that gen has all of these features in a more pronounced degree, which makes it look a little more rounded.
However, without a parallel comparison, it is very difficult to notice, both externally and from the fit, because all lines and transitions are proportionally preserved in angles and lengths. For example, you can pay attention to the side photo rep, how the angular bevel of the pillow fits perfectly into the top edge of the lug. So all the basic geometric shapes are made aesthetically pleasing.
The lugs adjoining the case at the end is done exactly horizontally along the top line, it seems that in gen this is done the same way, at least when compared with the angle of the short edge outside of it, to the outer edge. This is not easy to observe, due to the nervous end face, the case, its roundness and vertical inclination, but in the photo gen I do not see such a clear bevel at an angle "inward" along the upper lugs attachment line, as on steel models.
The shape of the lugs is proportional to the rep case, but as I said, it looks a little thinner in profile, due to a steeper and more uniform slope down, in contrast to the more "humped" gen, which is due to the greater thickness at the beginning and a steeper descent into end, looks thicker. Although, again, this is a continuation of the proportion of the bevel of the corners of the case, and relative to each other, everything looks good, therefore, it is not striking.
At the base of the lugs, from the inside, the mount is rounded, just like in the gen, this is a specific material processing. On any gen / rep, carbotech, fibratech, and even ceramic case, you will see the same thing.
In general, the midcase is good in shape, not inferior to other models, the only complaint is the material, which, as I have mentioned many times, differs significantly in color and texture.
I hope for the likelihood that panerai will continue to release models in this beautiful material, and VSF will have to master fibratech, with the expectation of further use in many reps.
Rep:
Main profiles:
Angles and individual views:
Gen:
2. Bezel:
The bezels in both cases are made of carbotech, the material is similar, the pattern is very similar, the finish is slightly different, but this is not essential.
- The angle from the transition of the bottom chamfer to the ramp looks a little sharper, but this is probably to the extent of the surface finish.
- The slope itself at the base seems to be too strong, but this is a microscopic effect, especially, for confirmation of which more successful photos are needed gen.
- The height seems to be in order, both the bottom chamfer of the base and the overall.
- But the front bevel around the crystal is clearly wider, and due to this, looking from the front, it seems that the bezel slope has a sharper angle. Also, this chamfer has a different angle, both with respect to a slightly domed crystal and a slope, therefore, when light enters, it shines with a luminous ring, drawing attention to itself.
A trifle, but now you will not forget about her on a sunny day lol.
In general, the bezel is good, it has the correct shape, design and material, we are still unlikely to see a change in the shape of the chamfer, but narrow polished chamfers are always difficult for factories, and we are used to living with it.
A few photos that visualize the main elements of the geometry of this part.
Rep:
Gen:
2. CG:
- The material is also different as in the case of the case.
- REG engraving. T.M. made thinner and deeper than the completely superficial on gen, and because of this the font looks darker, many even see it in black in the photo.
- Upper inner side of the CG cut, looks like a uniform arc and does not have the usual ridge in the middle of 1950 CGs steel.
- The thrust of the CG lever is slightly thinner on the rep, however, this is not significant, despite the fact that the shape is generally similar.
- The biggest question for me is the pin of the CG lever: on the rep it is metal (most likely steel), with a black pvd coating, well aligned with the CG plane.
On gen, there are different photos, some of which show flat, black metal and pvd, outwardly completely similar to rep, and sometimes gray, and for some reason strangely sticking out in some images.
I saw more of the last photos, although black and flat (preferably titanium to support the general idea of maintaining the minimum possible weight), in my opinion, it would be more logical, in view of simply the better finish and stylistic contrast, but so far I personally have no reliable information on this ...
The rear view of gen CG is bad, in the photos that I could find, but I don't think there is anything interesting there.
The shape of the lever is acceptable, and the chamfers at the corners of the CG become less obvious in contrast to rep / gen, especially since materials react differently to finishing, so I will not go into it.
In general, I can say that in addition to engraving and the difference in the appearance of the material, there are no complaints, and if the question with the material is rather philosophical, at this stage, then with the engraving it would be possible to come up with something from the factory, because it can be seen immediately , and this is not a mistake in the font of the letter "G" on pam382, but a much more noticeable defect.
Rep:
Gen:
REP/GEN:
4. Crown:
The crown is difficult to compare from the photo, due to the black and matte material, and also, for a normal inspection of the shape, it is worth removing the CG. There is no such possibility, so I suggest just looking at the CG photo above, because with the increase, it does not become better visible. I think you can find inconsistencies in the performance of the knurling of the "hill" on the top, in the place where the stopper of the CG lever touches, and possibly, due to slightly less pronounced bevels at the bottom and top of the teeth, the rep looks a little thicker in some angles, but my opinion is that the dimensions are correct, but the shape can be worked on to bring it to the ideal, however, based on this material, it is most likely very difficult, and the current version is quite acceptable. Moreover, even the panerai did not retain the shape of the original steel crown, but slightly changed it, probably also, due to the complexity of processing.
Note that the corona material carbotech, both rep and gen, and VSF even made sure to correctly position the workpiece and the grain pattern orientation is correct.
The faceted nut is also black, and in some angles it shines a little, but looking at the kind of matte DLC, it's the same for rep and gen. I suspect the rep is steel, gen is titanium, but this not known, not noticeable, and only affects the total weight of the watch.
Rep:
Gen:
5. Backcase:
- Case number engraving is wrong: Gen has OP7312 and REP has OP7518.
Explicitly related to pre-release renders, and is repeated on several other models in the series.
- The inscription "Ti case back" does not have a space on the rep.
- The OFFICINE PANERIA lettering seems a little thinner on the rep, but the fonts, size, depth, position and overall quality are fine.
- The bevel looks a little wider on gen, but even if it is, it is not significantly.
- It was not possible to measure the diameter of a caseback to check if it has a diameter corresponding to gen, but in comparison it seems, if not the same with gen, then in the same proportion with the size of the case.
- If anyone is interested, it would be interesting to weigh and find out if the caseback is titanium, under pvd coating. But so far there is no information, then in accordance with the description of TD, we will assume that this is so.
- Unfortunately, there is no photo that allows you to estimate the thickness and the reverse side, but apparently, there should not be any noticeable problems here.
Output:
I would like to know for sure about the material, the real diameter, but in any case, it looks applicable, and you can live with it, moreover, even if it is not so, I do not think that VSF will change this.
The same can be said about the quality of the engravings, however, I hope that in the next batch, it would be possible to add the missing space and write the correct case number. It will not be more expensive, it would just be right, despite the fact that this is the reverse side of the watch, to which there is always less attention.
Rep:
Gen:
Rep / gen:
6. Crystal:
The crystal shape is correct, it is not perfectly flat, it has a slight elevation that is very similar in proportion to gen, and I think this unites all the VSFs in the luminor 1950 44mm case.
There is a thin chamfer around the circle, which is also perfectly similar in all the photos that I have seen, it also concerns the height of the crystal installation.
The transparency of the crystal is sufficient, AR looks good in my opinion, however, as I mentioned more than once, I read that REP has double-sided AR, while GEN is only internal.
In my photos, I cannot confirm or deny this, but it seems that gen, judging by the reflection, has 1x AR.
I do not observe the fish-eye effect, the Transparency at an angle may not correspond to gen in degrees of inclination of the view, but it definitely suits me for rep.
My opinion is that the crystal is good, and the number of those who want to remove the extra outer AR in the future, I think, will be about the same as those who will add a stronger outer AR to enhance the effect of the pop -up dial. So I don't think there is any cause for concern.
Rep:
Gen:
