116610LN - down to VSF and ZZF v3. Ultimate winner?

[Tigerdragon]

Actually there is a whole thread on watchseek with examples seems like it is/was a gen issue. Still can't believe people still bought and were "fine" with it lol 8k retail price it would be like buying an ferrari and cut of the half of the famous logo and say "well it's still an ferrari".

 

[Substar]

It’s not just subs, Daytona’s and gmt also have this feature. I noticed quite a few Daytona dials with it when I bought a dial for my franken.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GingerBubba]

I don't see how you can call a dimple a flaw or suggest the factories are copying a 'Gen issue'. As I understand it, it wasn't a Rolex manufacturing error, it was just a consequence of their way of manufacturing the dial for a while. I get that you guys don't like the dimple, fair enough, but I don't think it's a flaw. That would be like saying single line rehaut engraving is a flaw and it should be double lined (because that's your preference) - no, that's just the way Rolex built it during that period.

 

[Tigerdragon]

Correct it still looks not good and newer subs don't have it so it seems more like they changed the dial producer and the new one can get it right. But people buying everything with rolex on the dial so yeah. I find it unbelievable that this "feature" is on a 8k priced watch when a 300€ Tisell Watch can do it without that dimble in the middle with the same glossy finish. The ZZF v3 don't have that dimble because there gen sample didn't have it. So the question is why do some have it and why some not? Seems like Rolex just bought some shit dials and say "it's in the tolerance" like with there cyclops and rehaut alignment to many people complaint about it and rolex says "it's in our tolerances" come on it's just ridiculous. I saw huge dimples in one of the threads about the gens and rolex says "it's in the tolerances" people are just ridiculous these days because it says rolex on the dial. Of course the reps with this issues are correct I was more like asking myself how someone can pay premium price for the gen with a dimble dial. But yeah no hate on the reps.

 

[CJS57]

I have a Brand new Gen 214060 two months old. It has a very mild and small dimple around the hand stack. Both the pearl and the top coronet are off center .001". The LEC at the 6 o'clock position is noticeably off center. Yes it is real gen from an AD. All of this made me like my super reps just that much more.

 

[YellowFin]

When that discussion came up in the early ZZF Sub era, I browsed through what must have been hundreds of C24 offers and barely found 2 or 3 pieces that looked as bad sas the average ZF dial. Another 20-30 Subs had an inner edge of the dial that I'd describe as "somewhat rounded", but that's about it. Just because it's period correct doesn't mean it's a great business decision. I didn't go for a ZZF NoDate to this day because of this and decided for a VSF just two weeks ago. If they believe they can afford to stick to this obscure dial at a higher price than competition in a market place with so many great Sub reps, well good luck.

 

[GingerBubba]

...it seems more like they changed the dial producer and the new one can get it right... I find it unbelievable that this "feature" is on a 8k priced watch when a 300€ Tisell Watch can do it without that dimble in the middle with the same glossy finish....Seems like Rolex just bought some shit dials and say "it's in the tolerance"...I was more like asking myself how someone can pay premium price for the gen with a dimble dial.

I think you miss my point. I don't think Rolex were unable to 'get it right'. I don't think Rolex were striving to make a flat dial, but just couldn't work out the super advanced technology of making something flat. I don't think Rolex bought a job lot of 'shit dials' and thought, "Do you know what, we'd best just use them, even though they're horribly flawed".

I think Rolex had no problem whatsoever with the dimple. Perhaps they even wanted it to be that way on purpose. I personally like the dimple, I think it makes the dial look glossier - it gives it a wet look/wave effect and plays with the light more. I think if these dials popped up and it was a manufacturing flaw that Rolex didn't like, they'd have nipped it in the bud immediately and changed supplier/manufacturing method - they wouldn't just crack on and hope no one noticed.

This is just my opinion btw, I'm not suggesting any of this is fact.

 

[Tigerdragon]

I don't believe rolex they had so much fuck ups over the years.

 

[Substar]

I’m pretty sure Rolex bought both companies Singer and Beyler who always produced Rolex dials. The dimple is simply caused by the hole pressing process and is what it is. I think you guys who are obsessed with it really need to get out more after lockdown!
In most angles the effect is not even noticeable and the ZF is certainly better than the ZZF was! I know this from owning them and not looking at blown up frigging pictures like some of you having never owned anything but feel qualified to comment!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tigerdragon]

It is not present on newer subs so it wasn't a "feature" rolex is just like every other company who do fuck ups they try to cover it up and people buy it because rolex rolex rolex. If it's the process making the dial why are all replicas of the past (noob, arf etc) don't have that issue? Do you really want me to believe that a dial somewhere printed in an underground tunnel in china could do a better job than rolex? You can't be serious.

They changed from double engraved rehaut to single laser rehaut because to cut costs! Don't praise rolex like gods they are just like every other company and make money.

I have an arf v1 and I had a noob v6, v7 not one of them had that issue and sorry if you can life with that "feature" it's totally ok I can't so every is fine. Still I can't believe this nonsense with "it's how the dial is made and they want it to look that way" that's just nonsense because even in the past not all of them had that "feature".

They just had batches with bad dials and were like "people won't notice it so who cares" then when people did saw it. It say a "feature" same shit what Apple did with older iPhones they get cought slowing them down via update and all of the sudden it was a "feature" but wait a minute they got sued and must pay 25 dollar per customer?! How can that be if it's a "feature".

Don't believe every nonsense this company's are saying only because it's says rolex on the dial.

Also ZF did a great job they just copied it 1:1 the dial which is fine. Rolex is more the problem and there "features".

One final note: it has nothing to do with holding it in your hands I had ZZF versions in my hands with small dimples like the ZF version and I noticed it every time the light hits it. So it's just not for me. I want the dial to look clean and perfect not with a dimple in the middle which ruins the whole dial. Other people have issues with SEL and stuff which I really don't care after seeing a lot of gens with terrible SEL.

So yeah everyone has other aspects to look for i actually more blame the people who pay 8k and more for it only because rolex is on the dial.

 

[GingerBubba]

If it's the process making the dial why are all replicas of the past (noob, arf etc) don't have that issue? Do you really want me to believe that a dial somewhere printed in an underground tunnel in china could do a better job than rolex? You can't be serious.

Doesn't that undermine your own argument? Making the dial flat is something SO EASY to do that even the shittest Canal Street reps have done so forever. Yet you think Rolex couldn't manage it? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Kalev007]

It is not present on newer subs so it wasn't a "feature" rolex is just like every other company who do fuck ups they try to cover it up and people buy it because rolex rolex rolex. If it's the process making the dial why are all replicas of the past (noob, arf etc) don't have that issue? Do you really want me to believe that a dial somewhere printed in an underground tunnel in china could do a better job than rolex? You can't be serious.

They changed from double engraved rehaut to single laser rehaut because to cut costs! Don't praise rolex like gods they are just like every other company and make money.

I have an arf v1 and I had a noob v6, v7 not one of them had that issue and sorry if you can life with that "feature" it's totally ok I can't so every is fine. Still I can't believe this nonsense with "it's how the dial is made and they want it to look that way" that's just nonsense because even in the past not all of them had that "feature".

They just had batches with bad dials and were like "people won't notice it so who cares" then when people did saw it. It say a "feature" same shit what Apple did with older iPhones they get cought slowing them down via update and all of the sudden it was a "feature" but wait a minute they got sued and must pay 25 dollar per customer?! How can that be if it's a "feature".

Don't believe every nonsense this company's are saying only because it's says rolex on the dial.

Also ZF did a great job they just copied it 1:1 the dial which is fine. Rolex is more the problem and there "features".

One final note: it has nothing to do with holding it in your hands I had ZZF versions in my hands with small dimples like the ZF version and I noticed it every time the light hits it. So it's just not for me. I want the dial to look clean and perfect not with a dimple in the middle which ruins the whole dial. Other people have issues with SEL and stuff which I really don't care after seeing a lot of gens with terrible SEL.

So yeah everyone has other aspects to look for i actually more blame the people who pay 8k and more for it only because rolex is on the dial.

Complete nonsense.

Changed double line to cut costs did you just made that up?

 

[Tigerdragon]

No i didn't the laser one is way easier to make because you just need one single laser, the double engraved was double lasert + polished, the new laser engraved ones arent even polished. They are cutting costs and making the process easier because the demand is so high. It goes faster and costs less = more profit.

GingerBubba

Then why did they change it on later Gens? Let me guess because the "feature" wasn't good enough? They just switched the supplier thats the reason. Don't believe anything these "companys" are telling you. Its a mass produced watch even AP had fuck ups don't believe it? Check this:

They aren't perfect but dont say its a "feature".

 

[Duckber]

Doesn't that undermine your own argument? Making the dial flat is something SO EASY to do that even the shittest Canal Street reps have done so forever. Yet you think Rolex couldn't manage it? It doesn't make sense to me.

To be fair, these canal reps have aligned rehauts whereas Rolex still can't get that right...

Not saying Rolex didn't intend the dimple but I don't trust Rolex's QC, in all honesty.

Regardless of if it's intended or not, it comes down to taste and I personally cant stand the sight of it. So I will personally be avoiding these dimple dial reps.

 

[Tigerdragon]

Actually thats a good point misaligned cyclops and rehauts are now "in rolex tolerances".

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=439703

But hey it says Rolex on the dial! Must be perfect! Let me guess its a feature that Rehauts are misaligned and Cyclops are more crooked than on Replicas or? No its just sloppy QC.

"When I went to the Rolex botique today, the Rolex technician informed me that Rolex has a certain margin of error that they permit to remain crooked. So, even if I sent my exp 2 under warrantee to get fixed, it may still come back slightly crooked. For something that is so easy to avoid in manufacturing, I find this to be pretty unacceptable. I only have one photo of this gmt but there were dozens of bnib pieces at the AD that needed the cyclops to be turned a tad bit counter clockwise. "

So why they cant align a cyclops? Even my 500 € Steinhart watch cyclops is aligned

 

[kavorca1]

Just goes to show you, we are way more particular about perfection in our watches than the company (Rolex) we try and imitate. Maybe we should think twice about bugging the crap out of our TD's over micro stuff. I see people reject watches that look better than the real thing! Just saying.

 

[Substar]

Just goes to show you, we are way more particular about perfection in our watches than the company (Rolex) we try and imitate. Maybe we should think twice about bugging the crap out of our TD's over micro stuff. I see people reject watches that look better than the real thing! Just saying.

Yep! Td’s do have to put up with the most ridiculous questions sometimes!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mikeanh77]

Well my gen GMT arrived with mis align rehaut, guess i was right after reading so many post with other people having the same problem with their gen.

 

[Duckber]

Well my gen GMT arrived with mis align rehaut, guess i was right after reading so many post with other people having the same problem with their gen.

Unfortunate part of the Rolex game. It's honestly why I couldn't care less about rehauts on a rep unless the crown is on the other side of the watch really. Congrats on the purchase though.

 

[ColumnWheel]

Only brands like Rolex can afford this; turn a defect into a feature and charge premium for it.
https://www.gq.com/story/unusual-rolex-air-king-value