I have been noticing lately a lot of questions/speculation about gold reps in general and particularly the quality of the plating or 'wrapping" that is associated with certain high dollar reps. I like Subs, so I am going to confine this to them pretty much. Although some may be applicable to DD'S and other reps.
This was also a pretty common topic in the early days of the forum, I have been wading thru as many older threads as I could find on the subject....it's a frustrating endeavor in that many of the old thread pics are long gone, replaced by the ubiquitous "upgrade your photosuckit"
nonsense. And also many of the players back then do not frequent the forum any longer.
I thought it might be time for some more current info to be posted, something for newbs or us gold bugs to take a gander at. It should be noted-just as the answer to "who has the best sub" is always "it depends" along with "use the search function", the answer to "who has the best gold sub" is subjective. There are some facts however that can be helpful in answering.
Going to attempt to address some of that here.
First I would like to post some takeaways about actual solid gold reps. Obviously such would bypass the questions on durability of gold as far as reps go completely since they ARE gold. Do they now or did they ever exist? I would say yes they did and with certain qualifications they still can be obtained.
Older threads speak of solid gold DD reps from Jason, Sean, TW best, etc. and some newer posts say if you ask Angus and possibly other dealers they can source you a solid gold rep still- but the price will be ridiculous. I saw mention of a TT with solid rather than rep gold being quoted at 7k by Trevor upon a member's inquiry. You also can have Phong make you a case and it will cost you an arm and a leg.
With gold prices as high as they are and fluctuations in the gold market unpredictable I can see where a rep manufacturer would see very little incentive to crank out solid gold reps on other than a made to order basis today. As far as value to someone it is of course individually subjective, but the market is very very small. Stands to reason that most rep buyers are looking to spend a fraction of the cost of the gen, combine that with the fact a solid gold rep will sport the same tells, movements, build quality as one made of plated metal and I don't think many see the value of springing half or possibly more of a used gen's cost just to have it made out of real gold.
Summing up the solid gold rep-are they out there? Yes. Do they make up more than a minuscule part of the rep game? No.
Moving on the the plated models now. It is a given that gold reps and especially full gold models do not get the same love as SS. This is very understandable due to the simple fact a scratch that will be no big deal on a SS will regulate your gold rep to your junk drawer, and there is no way to rework a case and very little leeway to brush or re polish a gold rep. Also many feel you are pushing the envelope of what is believable or just don't want to be that "flashy" which a gold rep most definitely is. That said, there are plenty of admirers of TT's and the threads and posts dedicated to WM9 blueseys along with Frankens of various stripes are testament to this. I think if gold were not so "difficult" many more would become gold bugs....
So the problem in essence is the plating. If you are a gold bug and must have one then of course you would like the most gen looking, durable one out there. There is also the weight of plated vs gen. Short of someone making a "tungsten under gold" Sub-weight issue is always going to be there. Don't take it off and hand it to anyone LOL.
The plating problem is twofold, durability and appearance. Addressing first durability, we need to delve into the arcane world of gold plating, which is fraught with misconceptions....and also misrepresentation by the factories/dealers.
A note here...we will be talking a lot about the "micron". This is a thousandth of a mm. A sheet of copy paper for reference is about 100 microns thick. So you can see most plating and specifically electroplating is very thin indeed!
So what does the term "gold plating" encompass? More than you might think. As a blanket term gold plating can encompass everything from gold "flash" or "wash" all the way up to obsolete "fire guilding" techniques, thicknesses varying between .175 microns all the way up to possibly a millimeter or more thick. Typically however, the term "gold plating" is used as a shortened version of gold electroplating. And after the heaviest electroplating possible (which is as near as I can figure around 10 microns at the outside), gold plating is not typically referred to as such any longer but terms such as gold filled, rolled gold, wrapped, gold overlay, clad, etc. are used.
Electroplating is by far the most common technique used in reps (or any other application for that matter) where the look of gold is desired. In the simplest terms electroplating is the deposit on a base metal of ionized gold using electrical current. Thickness of the plating varies- here is a nice chart I found with some ratios.
After 5-10 microns or so plating moves on from electro to mechanical application and also usually loses the "plating" descriptor and we see instead terms such as "gold filled" which in the USA has a actual concrete legal definition as I will detail. Often terms such as "wrapped" "rolled" "clad" "overlaid" are used instead but these are nebulous/antiquated and do not have any accepted standard definition. This type of plating SHOULD be anywhere from 20 or so microns up to a millimeter or so....but again these terms are often misused. Here is a simple diagram of this type.
As an example, in the USA, to legally use the term "gold filled" it has to meet a certain standard, and that is related to the purity of gold used and weight. I.E., starting with 10k which is the lowest US karat that can be called gold, the gold layer must equal 1/10 of the total weight of the plated piece to be called gold filled. 12k and up purities of gold must be at minimum 1/20 the weight of the piece to qualify as gold filled. There are stampings on the piece to reflect this also. So you can see there is a substantial amount more measurable gold in a gold filled object than a gold plated one. As far as thickness, while this is not specified, it is going to be generally quite a bit higher than any electroplated item since the volume of gold has to be a certain percentage by weight of the item. So-gold filled is much more durable and longer wearing than gold plate. There are some caveats to this though. Gold filled can sometimes "chip" since it is mechanically bonded while plated will generally "dent" along with the substrate metal. All in all though - gold filled would be the way to go for a high quality, durable rep gold watch. Is that what you get when you order a "wrapped" watch, however?
And here is where things get a LOT murkier. Just the term for instance- "wrapped". What exactly does this mean? The answer is: not a whole lot...
We have seen that at least in the USA the term "gold filled" has a concrete meaning. Other countries have different standards as far as legal descriptors for mechanical application of gold, but the USA "gold filled" seems as good a benchmark for high quality mechanical plating as any so we will use that. 'Wrapped" on the other hand does not have any real legal or standard meaning, but it seems the standard Chinese terminology for a (hopefully) thicker coating of gold than the normal electroplated rep. You would think though, just from the term, it referred to a mechanical application and the image it conjures is a gold layer being "wrapped" thickly around the watches base metal just as gold filled- the problem with this is it is VERY difficult to do such a thing with complex shapes such as found on bezels and cases, and to also keep from impairing the tight tolerances of a watch with the relatively thick gold layer.
If a "wrapped" watch equaled the standard of gold filled it would also be very expensive, remember if 18k it has to weigh 1/20 of the weight of the plated item. Say a normal 116610 weighs 160g (I know..I'm including the movement and crystal so not really... just spitballing) if it is used as the base, there would be roughly 950 bucks of gold at latest spot prices as I write this. Of course nobody says it HAS to be 18k (to be called solid gold in USA you only need 10k) but the color would be off if it was not. Most of the "wrapped" full gold subs start at 1100 and go to 1300 or so. That is a LARGE chunk out of the profit margin on a rep and I personally don't see it. Plus I don't see these high end reps fluctuating in price to match the spot price of gold and maintain the profit margin....seems off.
Instead what I suspect (but don't ask me to prove it) is the term 'Wrapped" in most cases currently refers to mostly really heavy electroplate OR possibly in some cases a actual layer on top of a copper or other base metal that while it may contain some gold is nowhere near pure enough to meet the standard of typical gold. A modern "pinchbeck" or "dutch gold" type mix if you will, layered on to look like it is gold filled but containing a mix of lesser metals along with the minimal gold needed to achieve the hopefully 18k look. Here is a pic of what I am talking about...you CAN see a layer of something filled or wrapped, but what exactly? It might seem this is a lot of trouble, unnecessarily deceptive to go to the length of replicating gold filled by layering "semi phony gold" on a link, just to charge more, but remember what we are dealing with here....replica makers, good at deception, which is why we buy them.
In the past I think certain reps were at times actually karat gold layered, but gold was cheaper then and even then they tended misadvertise them as "solid" gold when they were in fact gold filled/wrapped if you like. Pic of links from a old thread where OP was upset about links not being solid. This actually looks like a nice "wrapping" to have though!
Here is a interesting quote from a VERY old thread from none other than watchmaker9...George. If he was speaking truth than the wrapping on the links (which he calls plating...as a overarching term technically the more correct) was 1mm thick!! He also referrs to "copper alloy with 7k gold" which is very problematic...10k (US) and 9k (UK) is the lowest karat that can be legally called gold.
In summary- I would be very leery of "wrapped" gold available currently. I cannot prove my suspicions as to what it actually is and would be pleasantly surprised to be wrong and might actually spring for one then but at this point no. I think some of the "vintage" watches from the early days of the game were more likely to meet a better standard of "wrapping" and have read as much in older threads, but it seems uncommon today.
On the other hand-the electroplated reps seem pretty good nowadays. Maybe not for durability, but the other end of the gold equation is color match to gen. As I opined I'm not sure if "wrapped" is all that much more durable than electroplated, and even if you had the thickest wrapped rep in existence but the color was off what good would it do? My experience is limited to what I have gleaned from the forum and a recent purchase of a 116618 from PT. In particular the color match is very good, here is a sample of a electroplated link with a sample of 18k laid on it in different lighting.
While I have seen many postings, where rep gold is darker than gen, many of the newer gold Sub reps seem improved. Of course-it is common knowledge Rolex uses their own proprietary in house gold and I am not sure if the tone of that is the same as generic 18k. There was one newer "wrapped" sub posted where poster showed the links lined up with an older model and a gen 116618, looked like a perfect match, here is the pic: gen in middle, new -left older -right.
It's not like I can walk into a AD and say hiya! Mind if I compare my phony SubC with yours? I wanna check out the gold color....and sorry to say I and none of my friends so far have a 116618 laying around. If a member does, and I think I have seen a couple posted, I would be happy to send you a spare link from my rep so you could post a side by side here and we could see how it looks. PM me if you like. Until then I think the color is pretty great, might be maker dependent though.
As far as best maker...right now for gold I would vote for BP but that's just me.
Hope this verbose post entertains some members who have the "gold sub bug" and helps out some newbs trying to decide on the "right" gold Sub to get. I want to thank RWI's archives of old postings that I perused endlessly on the subject, as well as the world wide interwebs and Larry Tesler in particular LOL!
Edit additional information added 15/9/17 to see the pics without clicking jump to here: https://forum.replica-watch.info/threads/the-wrapped-gold-sub-guide.387868/#post-3647477
OK...Since I posted this I have been involved in a sort of crusade/obsession to get to the bottom of what exactly a "gold wrapping" consists of nowadays.
In the initial post I opined:
Instead what I suspect (but don't ask me to prove it) is the term 'Wrapped" in most cases currently refers to mostly really heavy electroplate OR possibly in some cases a actual layer on top of a copper or other base metal that while it may contain some gold is nowhere near pure enough to meet the standard of typical gold. A modern "pinchbeck" or "dutch gold" type mix if you will, layered on to look like it is gold filled but containing a mix of lesser metals along with the minimal gold needed to achieve the hopefully 18k look.
I think I can now confirm my suspicions, thanks to member @Gonza328's kindly agreeing to sell me a single "wrapped" gold link from a new noob 116613 TT. I have thoroughly analyzed it (translation: spent a enjoyable AM tearing it apart with my dremel and a vise and then taking the remnants to a couple of local gold buyers for a quick assay) and can now give the results (which surprised even me a little bit)....
THERE IS NO GOLD AT ALL IN A CURRENT NOOB "WRAPPED" SUB.
Here are pics and my takeaways from this exercise:
First here are pics of my plated 116618 BP and the 116613 Noob "wrapped", for color/tone comparison. The TT has a very slightly lighter tone, more like 14k than 18k. You can see the wrapping vs plating clearly from the side shot of the links.
View attachment 76872 View attachment 76871
And here are pics of dismantling of the link and stripping the wrapping:
View attachment 76873 View attachment 76874 View attachment 76875
Something to note here that raised my suspicions/validated my scepticism- there was tarnish/ discoloration on the inside of the wrapping and also when I opened it up to view the inner side it snapped in half, it was extremely brittle which is completely out of character for malleable 18k or even lower karat gold.
View attachment 76876
Calipers tell me it is roughly 200 microns...about 1/5 of a MM...thick.
View attachment 76877
The most telling thing, the weight. It weighed out at .60 gm vs 1.30 gm for a closely dimensionally equalivent 18k pendant.....View attachment 76878View attachment 76880View attachment 76879
By this time I was reasonably certain it was not even close to being 18k gold, but I did think it was possible there was some gold content, maybe a super low karatage like 7K or something with a bunch of other alloys in there. So- off to the gold buyers for a preliminary evaluation.
The results were pretty eye opening...let me preface by saying I was more than ready to pay for a professional assay if there had been any karat at all noted by the two places I went to. Turns out it would just be a waste to do it, the first local gold buyer tested it with nitric acid -and then just for kicks (and because I knew him and kinda begged) electronically tested it. Both were completely negative. The results were the same at the second place, and in addition upon my pressing them as to what metal/alloy they thought it might possibly be, gave the opinion since it was not magnetic it was a likely an aluminum bronze composite meant to mimic gold.
At that point I figured it was time to call it - and rein in my ambitions of having some kind of professional assay certificate to point to, it just seems pointless now.
I have mixed feelings about the results of all this. On the one hand it validates my suspicions as to what this whole "gold wrapped" thing is about. On the other hand it opens a can of worms, since these Reps are being presented and sold as pricy alternatives to plated models, supposedly with actual gold content...
I personally don't find it surprising and I'm sure many members won't either, after all, how incensed can you get?
"Hey! I am expecting REAL gold not phony gold on my phony watch!" The manufacturers are in the replica business are they not? We all know most of the advertising (1:1! Waterproof to 50m! Gen Swiss!) is baloney...so why would the "18k gold wrapped" claim be any different?
That said, the value to price ratio of a "wrapped" "gold" watch seems very very discouraging. I can see where there might be minor advantages like the wrapping is so much thicker than plating it will take a very deep scratch to show the base metal, and you could polish out things you could not with a plated watch, but the whole premise of more genuine gold color/value of actual gold content/tarnish resistance goes out the window.
I should also say, this was a single link from a Noob TT and it is possible that BP or another maker might yield a different result. I am out of faith on that one right now though.
I do still think in the past certain makers (TW Best, Sean, WM9, et al) were likely using at least some actual gold, past posters have said such watches passed the scratch test at least that this one failed, so there's that..
Again- this is not meant to dissuade anyone who wants a "wrapped" Sub from buying it, just to educate as to what can be realistically expected currently.
Hope members find this informative and feel free to hold forth with any thoughts pro or con!
Cheers! :adoration:
Additional edit 10/17: Since the above posting two members, @andrei01 and @2470f2.8ii have provided valuable information, by testing the Noob link as to actual type of metal and testing a BP link for gold content. Their posts are copied below:
@andrei01’s testing of the Noob link:
@2470f2.8ii’s test of a BP link:
So to recap- so far the Noob and BP factories have been shown to test NEGATIVE for gold content.
This was also a pretty common topic in the early days of the forum, I have been wading thru as many older threads as I could find on the subject....it's a frustrating endeavor in that many of the old thread pics are long gone, replaced by the ubiquitous "upgrade your photosuckit"
nonsense. And also many of the players back then do not frequent the forum any longer.I thought it might be time for some more current info to be posted, something for newbs or us gold bugs to take a gander at. It should be noted-just as the answer to "who has the best sub" is always "it depends" along with "use the search function", the answer to "who has the best gold sub" is subjective. There are some facts however that can be helpful in answering.
Going to attempt to address some of that here.
First I would like to post some takeaways about actual solid gold reps. Obviously such would bypass the questions on durability of gold as far as reps go completely since they ARE gold. Do they now or did they ever exist? I would say yes they did and with certain qualifications they still can be obtained.
Older threads speak of solid gold DD reps from Jason, Sean, TW best, etc. and some newer posts say if you ask Angus and possibly other dealers they can source you a solid gold rep still- but the price will be ridiculous. I saw mention of a TT with solid rather than rep gold being quoted at 7k by Trevor upon a member's inquiry. You also can have Phong make you a case and it will cost you an arm and a leg.
With gold prices as high as they are and fluctuations in the gold market unpredictable I can see where a rep manufacturer would see very little incentive to crank out solid gold reps on other than a made to order basis today. As far as value to someone it is of course individually subjective, but the market is very very small. Stands to reason that most rep buyers are looking to spend a fraction of the cost of the gen, combine that with the fact a solid gold rep will sport the same tells, movements, build quality as one made of plated metal and I don't think many see the value of springing half or possibly more of a used gen's cost just to have it made out of real gold.
Summing up the solid gold rep-are they out there? Yes. Do they make up more than a minuscule part of the rep game? No.
Moving on the the plated models now. It is a given that gold reps and especially full gold models do not get the same love as SS. This is very understandable due to the simple fact a scratch that will be no big deal on a SS will regulate your gold rep to your junk drawer, and there is no way to rework a case and very little leeway to brush or re polish a gold rep. Also many feel you are pushing the envelope of what is believable or just don't want to be that "flashy" which a gold rep most definitely is. That said, there are plenty of admirers of TT's and the threads and posts dedicated to WM9 blueseys along with Frankens of various stripes are testament to this. I think if gold were not so "difficult" many more would become gold bugs....
So the problem in essence is the plating. If you are a gold bug and must have one then of course you would like the most gen looking, durable one out there. There is also the weight of plated vs gen. Short of someone making a "tungsten under gold" Sub-weight issue is always going to be there. Don't take it off and hand it to anyone LOL.
The plating problem is twofold, durability and appearance. Addressing first durability, we need to delve into the arcane world of gold plating, which is fraught with misconceptions....and also misrepresentation by the factories/dealers.
A note here...we will be talking a lot about the "micron". This is a thousandth of a mm. A sheet of copy paper for reference is about 100 microns thick. So you can see most plating and specifically electroplating is very thin indeed!
So what does the term "gold plating" encompass? More than you might think. As a blanket term gold plating can encompass everything from gold "flash" or "wash" all the way up to obsolete "fire guilding" techniques, thicknesses varying between .175 microns all the way up to possibly a millimeter or more thick. Typically however, the term "gold plating" is used as a shortened version of gold electroplating. And after the heaviest electroplating possible (which is as near as I can figure around 10 microns at the outside), gold plating is not typically referred to as such any longer but terms such as gold filled, rolled gold, wrapped, gold overlay, clad, etc. are used.
Electroplating is by far the most common technique used in reps (or any other application for that matter) where the look of gold is desired. In the simplest terms electroplating is the deposit on a base metal of ionized gold using electrical current. Thickness of the plating varies- here is a nice chart I found with some ratios.
After 5-10 microns or so plating moves on from electro to mechanical application and also usually loses the "plating" descriptor and we see instead terms such as "gold filled" which in the USA has a actual concrete legal definition as I will detail. Often terms such as "wrapped" "rolled" "clad" "overlaid" are used instead but these are nebulous/antiquated and do not have any accepted standard definition. This type of plating SHOULD be anywhere from 20 or so microns up to a millimeter or so....but again these terms are often misused. Here is a simple diagram of this type.
As an example, in the USA, to legally use the term "gold filled" it has to meet a certain standard, and that is related to the purity of gold used and weight. I.E., starting with 10k which is the lowest US karat that can be called gold, the gold layer must equal 1/10 of the total weight of the plated piece to be called gold filled. 12k and up purities of gold must be at minimum 1/20 the weight of the piece to qualify as gold filled. There are stampings on the piece to reflect this also. So you can see there is a substantial amount more measurable gold in a gold filled object than a gold plated one. As far as thickness, while this is not specified, it is going to be generally quite a bit higher than any electroplated item since the volume of gold has to be a certain percentage by weight of the item. So-gold filled is much more durable and longer wearing than gold plate. There are some caveats to this though. Gold filled can sometimes "chip" since it is mechanically bonded while plated will generally "dent" along with the substrate metal. All in all though - gold filled would be the way to go for a high quality, durable rep gold watch. Is that what you get when you order a "wrapped" watch, however?
And here is where things get a LOT murkier. Just the term for instance- "wrapped". What exactly does this mean? The answer is: not a whole lot...
We have seen that at least in the USA the term "gold filled" has a concrete meaning. Other countries have different standards as far as legal descriptors for mechanical application of gold, but the USA "gold filled" seems as good a benchmark for high quality mechanical plating as any so we will use that. 'Wrapped" on the other hand does not have any real legal or standard meaning, but it seems the standard Chinese terminology for a (hopefully) thicker coating of gold than the normal electroplated rep. You would think though, just from the term, it referred to a mechanical application and the image it conjures is a gold layer being "wrapped" thickly around the watches base metal just as gold filled- the problem with this is it is VERY difficult to do such a thing with complex shapes such as found on bezels and cases, and to also keep from impairing the tight tolerances of a watch with the relatively thick gold layer.
If a "wrapped" watch equaled the standard of gold filled it would also be very expensive, remember if 18k it has to weigh 1/20 of the weight of the plated item. Say a normal 116610 weighs 160g (I know..I'm including the movement and crystal so not really... just spitballing) if it is used as the base, there would be roughly 950 bucks of gold at latest spot prices as I write this. Of course nobody says it HAS to be 18k (to be called solid gold in USA you only need 10k) but the color would be off if it was not. Most of the "wrapped" full gold subs start at 1100 and go to 1300 or so. That is a LARGE chunk out of the profit margin on a rep and I personally don't see it. Plus I don't see these high end reps fluctuating in price to match the spot price of gold and maintain the profit margin....seems off.
Instead what I suspect (but don't ask me to prove it) is the term 'Wrapped" in most cases currently refers to mostly really heavy electroplate OR possibly in some cases a actual layer on top of a copper or other base metal that while it may contain some gold is nowhere near pure enough to meet the standard of typical gold. A modern "pinchbeck" or "dutch gold" type mix if you will, layered on to look like it is gold filled but containing a mix of lesser metals along with the minimal gold needed to achieve the hopefully 18k look. Here is a pic of what I am talking about...you CAN see a layer of something filled or wrapped, but what exactly? It might seem this is a lot of trouble, unnecessarily deceptive to go to the length of replicating gold filled by layering "semi phony gold" on a link, just to charge more, but remember what we are dealing with here....replica makers, good at deception, which is why we buy them.
In the past I think certain reps were at times actually karat gold layered, but gold was cheaper then and even then they tended misadvertise them as "solid" gold when they were in fact gold filled/wrapped if you like. Pic of links from a old thread where OP was upset about links not being solid. This actually looks like a nice "wrapping" to have though!
Here is a interesting quote from a VERY old thread from none other than watchmaker9...George. If he was speaking truth than the wrapping on the links (which he calls plating...as a overarching term technically the more correct) was 1mm thick!! He also referrs to "copper alloy with 7k gold" which is very problematic...10k (US) and 9k (UK) is the lowest karat that can be legally called gold.
In summary- I would be very leery of "wrapped" gold available currently. I cannot prove my suspicions as to what it actually is and would be pleasantly surprised to be wrong and might actually spring for one then but at this point no. I think some of the "vintage" watches from the early days of the game were more likely to meet a better standard of "wrapping" and have read as much in older threads, but it seems uncommon today.
On the other hand-the electroplated reps seem pretty good nowadays. Maybe not for durability, but the other end of the gold equation is color match to gen. As I opined I'm not sure if "wrapped" is all that much more durable than electroplated, and even if you had the thickest wrapped rep in existence but the color was off what good would it do? My experience is limited to what I have gleaned from the forum and a recent purchase of a 116618 from PT. In particular the color match is very good, here is a sample of a electroplated link with a sample of 18k laid on it in different lighting.
While I have seen many postings, where rep gold is darker than gen, many of the newer gold Sub reps seem improved. Of course-it is common knowledge Rolex uses their own proprietary in house gold and I am not sure if the tone of that is the same as generic 18k. There was one newer "wrapped" sub posted where poster showed the links lined up with an older model and a gen 116618, looked like a perfect match, here is the pic: gen in middle, new -left older -right.
It's not like I can walk into a AD and say hiya! Mind if I compare my phony SubC with yours? I wanna check out the gold color....and sorry to say I and none of my friends so far have a 116618 laying around. If a member does, and I think I have seen a couple posted, I would be happy to send you a spare link from my rep so you could post a side by side here and we could see how it looks. PM me if you like. Until then I think the color is pretty great, might be maker dependent though.
As far as best maker...right now for gold I would vote for BP but that's just me.
Hope this verbose post entertains some members who have the "gold sub bug" and helps out some newbs trying to decide on the "right" gold Sub to get. I want to thank RWI's archives of old postings that I perused endlessly on the subject, as well as the world wide interwebs and Larry Tesler in particular LOL!
Edit additional information added 15/9/17 to see the pics without clicking jump to here: https://forum.replica-watch.info/threads/the-wrapped-gold-sub-guide.387868/#post-3647477
OK...Since I posted this I have been involved in a sort of crusade/obsession to get to the bottom of what exactly a "gold wrapping" consists of nowadays.
In the initial post I opined:
Instead what I suspect (but don't ask me to prove it) is the term 'Wrapped" in most cases currently refers to mostly really heavy electroplate OR possibly in some cases a actual layer on top of a copper or other base metal that while it may contain some gold is nowhere near pure enough to meet the standard of typical gold. A modern "pinchbeck" or "dutch gold" type mix if you will, layered on to look like it is gold filled but containing a mix of lesser metals along with the minimal gold needed to achieve the hopefully 18k look.
I think I can now confirm my suspicions, thanks to member @Gonza328's kindly agreeing to sell me a single "wrapped" gold link from a new noob 116613 TT. I have thoroughly analyzed it (translation: spent a enjoyable AM tearing it apart with my dremel and a vise and then taking the remnants to a couple of local gold buyers for a quick assay) and can now give the results (which surprised even me a little bit)....
THERE IS NO GOLD AT ALL IN A CURRENT NOOB "WRAPPED" SUB.
Here are pics and my takeaways from this exercise:
First here are pics of my plated 116618 BP and the 116613 Noob "wrapped", for color/tone comparison. The TT has a very slightly lighter tone, more like 14k than 18k. You can see the wrapping vs plating clearly from the side shot of the links.
View attachment 76872 View attachment 76871
And here are pics of dismantling of the link and stripping the wrapping:
View attachment 76873 View attachment 76874 View attachment 76875
Something to note here that raised my suspicions/validated my scepticism- there was tarnish/ discoloration on the inside of the wrapping and also when I opened it up to view the inner side it snapped in half, it was extremely brittle which is completely out of character for malleable 18k or even lower karat gold.
View attachment 76876
Calipers tell me it is roughly 200 microns...about 1/5 of a MM...thick.
View attachment 76877
The most telling thing, the weight. It weighed out at .60 gm vs 1.30 gm for a closely dimensionally equalivent 18k pendant.....View attachment 76878View attachment 76880View attachment 76879
By this time I was reasonably certain it was not even close to being 18k gold, but I did think it was possible there was some gold content, maybe a super low karatage like 7K or something with a bunch of other alloys in there. So- off to the gold buyers for a preliminary evaluation.
The results were pretty eye opening...let me preface by saying I was more than ready to pay for a professional assay if there had been any karat at all noted by the two places I went to. Turns out it would just be a waste to do it, the first local gold buyer tested it with nitric acid -and then just for kicks (and because I knew him and kinda begged) electronically tested it. Both were completely negative. The results were the same at the second place, and in addition upon my pressing them as to what metal/alloy they thought it might possibly be, gave the opinion since it was not magnetic it was a likely an aluminum bronze composite meant to mimic gold.
At that point I figured it was time to call it - and rein in my ambitions of having some kind of professional assay certificate to point to, it just seems pointless now.
I have mixed feelings about the results of all this. On the one hand it validates my suspicions as to what this whole "gold wrapped" thing is about. On the other hand it opens a can of worms, since these Reps are being presented and sold as pricy alternatives to plated models, supposedly with actual gold content...
I personally don't find it surprising and I'm sure many members won't either, after all, how incensed can you get?
"Hey! I am expecting REAL gold not phony gold on my phony watch!" The manufacturers are in the replica business are they not? We all know most of the advertising (1:1! Waterproof to 50m! Gen Swiss!) is baloney...so why would the "18k gold wrapped" claim be any different?
That said, the value to price ratio of a "wrapped" "gold" watch seems very very discouraging. I can see where there might be minor advantages like the wrapping is so much thicker than plating it will take a very deep scratch to show the base metal, and you could polish out things you could not with a plated watch, but the whole premise of more genuine gold color/value of actual gold content/tarnish resistance goes out the window.
I should also say, this was a single link from a Noob TT and it is possible that BP or another maker might yield a different result. I am out of faith on that one right now though.
I do still think in the past certain makers (TW Best, Sean, WM9, et al) were likely using at least some actual gold, past posters have said such watches passed the scratch test at least that this one failed, so there's that..
Again- this is not meant to dissuade anyone who wants a "wrapped" Sub from buying it, just to educate as to what can be realistically expected currently.
Hope members find this informative and feel free to hold forth with any thoughts pro or con!
Cheers! :adoration:
Additional edit 10/17: Since the above posting two members, @andrei01 and @2470f2.8ii have provided valuable information, by testing the Noob link as to actual type of metal and testing a BP link for gold content. Their posts are copied below:
@andrei01’s testing of the Noob link:
Here are the results:
Shiny side 1st :
The device i have is not calibrated to show precious metals so everything precious is shown as 'W', in our case W being gold. So there certainly is some gold there. But is piece gold plated or is gold really part of the alloy ?
Now the side facing the stainless link:
You can clearly see that W doesn't show up anymore so this concludes the test.
Just to be sure i grinded the shiny face a bit and repeated the test:
It still shows W ( gold ) but the piece being so small i'm not sure if i managed to scrape off the entire surface with the grinder.
The correct way was to flaten the piece and then sand it and then retest but since the backside doesn't show any trace of gold it's quite obvious that this is just gold plated brass.
Sent from the RWI App
@2470f2.8ii’s test of a BP link:
So to recap- so far the Noob and BP factories have been shown to test NEGATIVE for gold content.
