I didn’t say exactly that, but ok!
And the gen owner didn’t say that as well. He said it could use some work, but it was very good.
Why talk about the crystal? 116 crystal better than 126 crystal? Show me please...
You talk from what you see in pictures, and so do I.
And now?! Who’s right?
I love what I see from QC pictures to “real pictures” and, honestly, I can’t see any problems as you do.
That’s why it would be nice to see a good comparison between gen and vsf - both watches, same angles, same lighting conditions.
It’s the only way we’ll be able to tell if what you so strongly defend is true!
That doesn’t really matter, to me!
I already ordered the watch because I really love what I’m seeing here.
I don’t think anyone will tell me “look at those lugs, that’s a bad replica”
But... you did say exactly that...
Someone asked if the 126 is as gen-like as the 116. You said yes.
Are you telling me you did not?
I'm stating that's factually incorrect.
And the gen owner didn’t say that as well. He said it could use some work, but it was very good.
Which means, in other words, that it's inaccurate. There's no contradiction here.
Why talk about the crystal? 116 crystal better than 126 crystal? Show me please...
I never stated the 116 is better than the 126 crystal-wise. Just that the 116 crystal more accurate to gen than the 126 crystal is to its gen counter-part.
Again, the person asked about gen-likeness. I'm starting to think you didn't even understand that person's question.
Edit: to make things clear, the 126 VSF is by no means a bad replica. Not by a long shot. It just needs some more refinement which I'm sure will be done by v2. I'm simply stating their 116610 is considerably more gen-like.
Last edited: