Guys, I haven't done a photo review before and definitely don't have the talent that some of you do. If you have any particular shots or angles you want to see, just reply and let me know. Before the comparison, here are some shots of the JF by itself:
For the first two shots below, the gen and JF were photographed at the same distance with the same focal length, so distortion should not be much of a factor (one may have been a few mm closer to the camera than the other as the case holding the watches moved between shots).
Here we see some tells: Notice that the signature reflection of the dial plots that is always visible in the bevel of a five-digit crystal is absent on the JF. I don't know if this is because of the crystal profile (the bevel is slightly smaller), crystal height, AR treatments (JF LV owners have noted some weird AR treatments on their crystals) or the rehaut. However, looking at these two pics--and the watches on the wrist--I am convinced the rehaut angle is much closer to gen than on the older JF LV watches, if not identical. If there is any issue with the rehaut on this revised case, it may be that it is too short. See the third picture below. It is hard to tell when comparing the engraved to the unengraved rehauts, but the JF looks slightly shorter than the gen and TC. Also, notice that the dark ring around the top of the rehaut is bigger on the JF than it is on the gen and TC, suggesting that there is more space between the rehaut and the bottom of the crystal.
The new JF CGs are closer to gen than TC. They are slightly thinner than my gen, consistent with a five digit that has been polished once. But they are the correct length and profile for a late five digit (different from a 90's 16613 case I have), and have the correct uninterrupted line separating them and the crown relief area from the flat profile of the top of the case.
GEN
JF
TC, GEN, JF
My photography skills are the limiting factor here, but the crown looks very good to me. Crown height relative to the rest of the case is, of course, gen-like. Notice that the profile of the bezel is a little different, although the bezels changed enough throughout production of the watches that the JF could be an accurate rendering of an engraved rehaut model. As others here have discussed, the scalloped areas of rolex sport bezels are not polished, but rather reflect heavily at certain angles because of fine tool marks. Those are present on the JF, although the fineness of those marks is not perfectly identical to gen. It is on par with TC pre-PA bezels in appearance and in feel/feedback.
If you couldn't tell (I can't without looking at the uncropped picture, where the hang tag is on the gen), gen is on the left. The slightly narrower crownguards are visible even at this angle, where the curvature out towards the CG starts further out on the flat edge of the gen case than the JF. To me, this is not noticeable at all unless the watches are side by side, and again a polished gen would looks like the JF.
I don't see much point in a bracelet comparison, as I don't know of any improvements since the JF other than the single-piece SEL, but I'm happy to post shots if people want them. The clasp is pretty flawed, and feels nothing like gen. There is some tension as the main portion is closed such that it springs open with little effort, although when on the wrist the flip-lock holds it down without issue. One other thing you won't get from the pictures: the crown threads have a slightly rough, gritty feel not present on gens. However, winding, date setting, and hack/time-setting all feel gen-like.
Hope this helps, guys. Let me know if you have any questions.
For the first two shots below, the gen and JF were photographed at the same distance with the same focal length, so distortion should not be much of a factor (one may have been a few mm closer to the camera than the other as the case holding the watches moved between shots).
Here we see some tells: Notice that the signature reflection of the dial plots that is always visible in the bevel of a five-digit crystal is absent on the JF. I don't know if this is because of the crystal profile (the bevel is slightly smaller), crystal height, AR treatments (JF LV owners have noted some weird AR treatments on their crystals) or the rehaut. However, looking at these two pics--and the watches on the wrist--I am convinced the rehaut angle is much closer to gen than on the older JF LV watches, if not identical. If there is any issue with the rehaut on this revised case, it may be that it is too short. See the third picture below. It is hard to tell when comparing the engraved to the unengraved rehauts, but the JF looks slightly shorter than the gen and TC. Also, notice that the dark ring around the top of the rehaut is bigger on the JF than it is on the gen and TC, suggesting that there is more space between the rehaut and the bottom of the crystal.
The new JF CGs are closer to gen than TC. They are slightly thinner than my gen, consistent with a five digit that has been polished once. But they are the correct length and profile for a late five digit (different from a 90's 16613 case I have), and have the correct uninterrupted line separating them and the crown relief area from the flat profile of the top of the case.
GEN
JF
TC, GEN, JF
My photography skills are the limiting factor here, but the crown looks very good to me. Crown height relative to the rest of the case is, of course, gen-like. Notice that the profile of the bezel is a little different, although the bezels changed enough throughout production of the watches that the JF could be an accurate rendering of an engraved rehaut model. As others here have discussed, the scalloped areas of rolex sport bezels are not polished, but rather reflect heavily at certain angles because of fine tool marks. Those are present on the JF, although the fineness of those marks is not perfectly identical to gen. It is on par with TC pre-PA bezels in appearance and in feel/feedback.
If you couldn't tell (I can't without looking at the uncropped picture, where the hang tag is on the gen), gen is on the left. The slightly narrower crownguards are visible even at this angle, where the curvature out towards the CG starts further out on the flat edge of the gen case than the JF. To me, this is not noticeable at all unless the watches are side by side, and again a polished gen would looks like the JF.
I don't see much point in a bracelet comparison, as I don't know of any improvements since the JF other than the single-piece SEL, but I'm happy to post shots if people want them. The clasp is pretty flawed, and feels nothing like gen. There is some tension as the main portion is closed such that it springs open with little effort, although when on the wrist the flip-lock holds it down without issue. One other thing you won't get from the pictures: the crown threads have a slightly rough, gritty feel not present on gens. However, winding, date setting, and hack/time-setting all feel gen-like.
Hope this helps, guys. Let me know if you have any questions.
