$600 out the window? Amatory-Store.net

[kazuss]

Really? Because comparing it to the real one, I don't notice a whole lot of difference.

Do be aware, the picture quality is quite bad, and deceiving. It's a lot cleaner and clearer IRL. It looks filthy in the picture, but it's immaculate IRL.

 

[kazuss]

Also, Luthier. Why so vindictive? Relax, it's a small $240 piece of metal, not a big deal. Certainly nothing to perturb others about.

Rather, I'd appreciate an in-depth explanation of why this replica is so "bad". And keep in mind the poor lighting, and crappy shot from a cell phone camera, adding noise and such.

My father owns a real GMT II, and even comparing it side by side to his, I genuinely could not tell any difference. (Other than an ever so slightly different weight, and sound).

If my father (whom is a extreme watch aficionado and used to work for Rolex), and myself can't tell the difference, then the differences aren't even worth pointing out. Because the whole point of a replica is to look similar. It's not supposed to be the real thing. If I wanted a real one, I'd go buy one.

 

[ShiroTenshi]

Doesnt look too shabby, but for I bet its beating at 21,600 rather than 28,800 bhp?

Also, Luthier. Why so vindictive? Relax, it's a small $240 piece of metal, not a big deal. Certainly nothing to perturb others about.

Rather, I'd appreciate an in-depth explanation of why this replica is so "bad". And keep in mind the poor lighting, and crappy shot from a cell phone camera, adding noise and such.

My father owns a real GMT II, and even comparing it side by side to his, I genuinely could not tell any difference. (Other than an ever so slightly different weight, and sound).

If my father (whom is a extreme watch aficionado and used to work for Rolex), and myself can't tell the difference, then the differences aren't even worth pointing out. Because the whole point of a replica is to look similar. It's not supposed to be the real thing. If I wanted a real one, I'd go buy one.

 

[kazuss]

Shiro, good question, it is indeed 28,800, just as advertised.

Maybe later I'll take a more professional picture, just for the sake of it, to show it actually is clean and such.

Some people just hate being wrong, so naturally they play devils advocate.

 

[kazuss]

I took the watch to the studio with me today to take some better pictures, you can judge accurately for yourselves now.

I also noticed that amatory-store.co is back up now. Weird, maybe their site was just down. Regardless, here's the pic:

http://imageshack.com/a/img833/3869/75lh.jpg

Do be aware a few things don't line up perfectly due to my imperfect camera angles (I'm only human). But I think you get the idea. It's not too bad.

 

[fborja]

I took the watch to the studio with me today to take some better pictures, you can judge accurately for yourselves now.

I also noticed that amatory-store.co is back up now. Weird, maybe their site was just down. Regardless, here's the pic:

http://imageshack.com/a/img833/3869/75lh.jpg

Do be aware a few things don't line up perfectly due to my imperfect camera angles (I'm only human). But I think you get the idea. It's not too bad.

The color on those bezel numbers it's the best I've seen so far in any ceramic Rolex rep.

Gratz on your watch.

 

[Luthier]

It's not vindictive, it's lack of experience from you. Any seasoned member would notice even more flaws, that I found in 5 seconds. And trust me- it has nothing to do with angle of lenses, I know photography very well. It's flaws. I'm not even talking about these "supersized" crown guards...


Crown on rehaut is off, LEC is way off, markers are off, cyclop is off, and triangle is way off.

 

[kazuss]

No, Luthier, as a professional fashion photographer I can promise you that you know a lot less about photography and lens distortion than you think you may, you must not understand focal plane and how it works.

If you look more carefully you will see the watch is crooked, and not straight in the picture. Not to mention it was shot at a diverse angle.

All of your "aligning" is moot unless the picture is shot perfectly straight on. I can assure you that everything is straight. The bezel is slightly crooked, but only because I mistakenly left it that way before taking the picture, normally it is straight.

Just the fact that you're trying to direct lines to a picture that was shot from a diverse angle shows your ignorance. Go troll somewhere else.

Maybe you have a predisposition to play devils advocate for no apparent reason, but I was only posting a picture so people could see it's a pretty accurate fake...
Either way, it's still a fake. Which means it can't be perfect, it's impossible. So yes, you may have some points, but it's not a bad fake.

Also, the crown guards are EXACTLY the same size as my dads real one. Just checked, absolutely no difference. You must not understand basic physics in size correlation either. Go fabricate fables on another thread.

 

[kazuss]

Yeah, it's not bad, fborja. Thanks!

 

[Luthier]

Vertical angle of the lenses is around 4-5 degrees, no any horisontal angle there. So, there's no any distortion. Sure, it's a replica not a gen, but, please, don't talk about my photography knowledge, I worked with Hasselblad professionally in Europe, when, I guess you wasn't even born.

 

[kazuss]

Again, Luthier, you are completely wrong. I'm not talking about the offset dimensions of the glass, I'm simply talking about the focal plane, between the angles of which the lens is aimed at the object in focus. I didn't shoot the camera at the watch perfectly straight, I shot it at an angle with a wide angle lens. Which means lots of distortion close-up and lots of linear distraction.

Either way, I can assure everyone reading this that the lines are indeed straight. Regardless of certain individuals on this threads lack of perspective.

This will be my last post on this thread, I have better things to do than argue with some ignorant that doesn't understand basic geometry.

Anyways, the whole point of this thread was to show that my watch actually came in. If you want to order from amatory-store.co and take the chance I took, maybe it will pay off for you. Maybe not. But I might just take another chance with them some day.

Have a great day all!

 

[hsmooth]

... please, don't talk about my photography knowledge, I worked with Hasselblad professionally in Europe, when, I guess you wasn't even born.

Regardless of the other issues at hand, I must say, this is a good comeback :hehehe:

Now, carry on your discussion please...
opcorn:

 

[murkness]

Someone standing up to big scary luthier, interestinggg

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ShiroTenshi]

Looks good at $250, provided it does have a A2836 inside and not a 21J.
Anyway, really suggest that you go with TD and not the trying your luck with amatory store again.

And oh, we call them reps (replicas) here instead of fake.

Cheers
:cheers:

Again, Luthier, you are completely wrong. I'm not talking about the offset dimensions of the glass, I'm simply talking about the focal plane, between the angles of which the lens is aimed at the object in focus. I didn't shoot the camera at the watch perfectly straight, I shot it at an angle with a wide angle lens. Which means lots of distortion close-up and lots of linear distraction.

Either way, I can assure everyone reading this that the lines are indeed straight. Regardless of certain individuals on this threads lack of perspective.

This will be my last post on this thread, I have better things to do than argue with some ignorant that doesn't understand basic geometry.

Anyways, the whole point of this thread was to show that my watch actually came in. If you want to order from amatory-store.co and take the chance I took, maybe it will pay off for you. Maybe not. But I might just take another chance with them some day.

Have a great day all!

 

[d4m.test]

Kazuss' watch looks decent to me. I don't even know what half of Luthier's lines are pointing at.

I still wouldn't buy from amatory, and I don't think kazuss' post is trying to encourage anyone to do so. Just stop posting the full URL to it though.

I'm confused though... I've never owned a GMT watch before, but I was under the impression that the bezel is stationary. Kazuss mentions turning the bezel. Is it supposed to turn?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[ShiroTenshi]

Kazuss' watch looks decent to me. I don't even know what half of Luthier's lines are pointing at.

I still wouldn't buy from amatory, and I don't think kazuss' post is trying to encourage anyone to do so. Just stop posting the full URL to it though.

I'm confused though... I've never owned a GMT watch before, but I was under the impression that the bezel is stationary. Kazuss mentions turning the bezel. Is it supposed to turn?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

The GMT Master is suppose to turn, not the Exp2 models though.