How the heck did noob's bezel contractor f--ck up by adding serifs to the R's? Also, why would noob accept these bezels with such an obvious flaw??? I don't expect perfection from a rep, just close enough. However, when you are talking about a rep that is priced at $688 plus shipping etc., we shouldn't be seeing a decline in accuracy on such a key part and the QC is starting a bit spotty. Lot's of dial indices are not lined up well, bezels not lined up with at the 12, dials misaligned etc. I can live with slight gaps in the SEL--which can often be fixed with a larger spring bar--but such an obvious flaw in he bezel font is worse IMO than a flaw in the print font on the dial.
I know most of you guys are going for the 116500 (it is damn sexy), but I think that, even without updates, the rep of the 116520 is harder to spot as a rep. Sure, they used the wrong font and alignment on the dial, but there have been so many different dial variations of the 116520 dial over its 16 year run that it would be really hard to tell if something is off. An AD or other dealer might be aware that there are different dial variation, but there is (to the best of my knowledge) no official guide from Rolex detailing changes in dial variations from year to year/batch to batch (nor is this something that Rolex publicizes). Most AD's wouldn't be able to tell that a 116520 is a replica until you pop off the case back and see the movement. Same goes with the steel bezel font--no crazy serifs added. Also, seeing a gen 116500 in the wild is rare indeed, but there are enough 116520's out there that it wouldn't catch as much attention or scrutiny (if you care about that sort of thing). I am frankly not sure they would really spot the differences between even the current noob and the gen 116500 without inspecting the movement, but the flaws definitely stand out more on the 116500 since it is such a rare and coveted watch at the moment with a limited number of variations in design since it's launch.
