• Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!

ARF 16610 LV Submariner 904L Kermit photo review

KJ2020

Time Traveler
Supporter
12/3/18
32,372
56,759
113
I'm sooooo happy to finally see some picts of the New ARF watch.

So... what to do? I'm dreaming of a kermit... few options are available right now:

-pre-owned TC (v6?),almost twice as expensive as this ARF, with gen crystal, would probably need a slight polishing / rebrushing as it hasn't been babied, and insert is scratched
-this New ARF watch (any chance a gen crystal will fit without issue? The crystal being too high annoys me a little. It looks like a rep trying too hard to look gen.)
-keep looking around for a JF

what would be the general consensus?

It should take a gen crystal but If you put one in obviously you would want a shorter height gasket, that's part of the reason for doing it. Then you potentially run into date magnification issues as is being discussed in this thread. Many people replacing ARF 116710 LN (black GMT) crystals with gen or Prof ones are ending up with reduced date mag. You can't lower a crystal as much as this one needs without somehow addressing that date size reduction. Replacing the datewheel too might do it, it needs replacing anyway. ARF has combined these two parts (crystal and datewheel) to produce a 2.5x look so just changing one without the other might not retain that look. It is possible ARF is using a weaker mag cyclops like 2.0x to offset the great height so going closer with a 2.5x gen would work. We will have to wait for some folks to try this. It's baffling why ARF would make the crystal sit so high. On a pretty significant release like this, it's a real blunder IMO.
 
Last edited:

m5smg2

Put Some Respect On My Name
Supporter
Certified
23/8/07
5,995
7,595
113
28

eb8fa9bf8236d79d1e92599c3bbe116d.plist

98046933954c967006fbcc6c1681aa5a.plist



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

23
4c0b9c2e17821551df4a235abe6aee68.plist
 

Nikz19

Watchmaker / Modder
Vendor (Watch Repair)
Certified
24/4/18
1,868
2,770
113
Italy
I disagree 100%

Please explain, because I’ve seen many genuine bracelets close to 316L reps (most of ‘em being 93250) which have been through the same brushing process and I wasn’t able to tell any visual difference at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m5smg2

KJ2020

Time Traveler
Supporter
12/3/18
32,372
56,759
113
I have seen a distinctly different coloration on rep bracelets that claim to be 904L. The GMF "904" bracelets are much whiter in color than BP 316 ones. See if you can tell that from the pics below.

I am a die hard 904 nay-sayer on reps though as I've said frequently. I attribute any color difference to some other cheap metal or alloy additive to the factory recipe (like chromium) that achieves the look at little to no extra cost. This feature is pure price gouging IMO.

GMF 904
lPHt1.jpg


BP 316
xuVPc.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: m5smg2 and Aphung2

botsyboy

Put Some Respect On My Name
Supporter
Certified
1/9/09
3,115
2,093
113
U.K.
There is no difference


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Oh yes there is a difference between genuine 904 Rolex steel and 316. I restore Rolex watches from time to time and 904 is far easier to work with and polish compared to 316 and in my hand the difference is night and day even on a rep.
 

heska

Renowned Member
Supporter
29/11/17
648
362
63
Are gen bracelet supposed to be 904 ? I have a gen clasp on jf links that have been rebrushed together and I honestly can’t see any difference in colors
 
Last edited:

Nikz19

Watchmaker / Modder
Vendor (Watch Repair)
Certified
24/4/18
1,868
2,770
113
Italy
For reference, see older JF 16610 lugs and crystal height.
They used to be so much better. ARF just screwed up, their case looks like a plexy case.


6e222a7d61fea08323775815d7e15532.jpg


6bd7e9e271106be8430d34a5d5638433.jpg



Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: m5smg2 and KJ2020

mari115

Put Some Respect On My Name
9/6/18
4,439
2,478
113
Nearer than you think
Oh yes there is a difference between genuine 904 Rolex steel and 316. I restore Rolex watches from time to time and 904 is far easier to work with and polish compared to 316 and in my hand the difference is night and day even on a rep.

I owned multiple gens and reps both 316L and 904L, I could never tell the difference in color, just in finishing, and that’s what i meant, there is no visual difference, and it’s definitely not a tell.
The only difference you could somewhat perceive would be the difference in grain for the satin, but color and reflections are the same for me.

The upgrade from 316 to 904 is just an unwanted and unneeded luxury “improvement” so that they can charge you 100$ more for a 2$ upgrade

I should look for some more, but I found this old pic of mine, gen vs rep, the color is basically the same, if you see differences they would be because of reflections and light


EEDE03-CC-F3-EB-428-A-B7-E3-7-F981-BE4-BC5-F.jpg



Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ROXOLO

Known Member
9/12/18
194
38
0
For reference, see older JF 16610 lugs and crystal height.
They used to be so much better. ARF just screwed up, their case looks like a plexy case.


6e222a7d61fea08323775815d7e15532.jpg


6bd7e9e271106be8430d34a5d5638433.jpg



Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I don't see that much difference except in crystal height, to be honest
yes lugs are a bit different but not "worse" when compared to gen IMHO, both are not 100% correct
Regarding crystal height and magnification: I think it's fair to assume rehaut height is the same, and case construction is the same, only external machining seems slightly different... thus if someone would install a gen (or aftermarket) gen spec crystal, OR a JF crystal, date mag should be ok? Can we assume the cyclops on the ARF crystal compensates the difference in height?
 
  • Like
Reactions: m5smg2

KJ2020

Time Traveler
Supporter
12/3/18
32,372
56,759
113
I don't see that much difference except in crystal height, to be honest
yes lugs are a bit different but not "worse" when compared to gen IMHO, both are not 100% correct
Regarding crystal height and magnification: I think it's fair to assume rehaut height is the same, and case construction is the same, only external machining seems slightly different... thus if someone would install a gen (or aftermarket) gen spec crystal, OR a JF crystal, date mag should be ok? Can we assume the cyclops on the ARF crystal compensates the difference in height?

It is possible ARF is using a weaker mag cyclops like 2.0x to offset the crystal height so going closer with a 2.5x gen might work. We will have to wait for some folks to try this. I don't think it safe to assume anything. Many ARF 116710 LNs won't take a gen-spec crystal without a .5x mag reduction. It may be a gasket height issue on the ones that are affected, I know some people got this done right.