Having owned my gen 116613 for the last few months, the following flaws stand out to me in the photos I'm seeing:
-Date mag AR looks very different in terms of colour
-Blue colour on dial and bezel look lighter/ more flat (closer to smurf execution)
-Dial printing looks FLAT. Gen has a glitter and is raised
-Rehaut engravings look thinner
-Texture of gold numbers in bezel insert are rough. Mine are smooth
-Dial index rims are thinner on gen than rep
The rep sel in the photos don't bother me too much on these as at least your getting a thicker gold wrap. If they were smart they would have used brass rather than steel on the sel like wm9 did.
IMO I would say the LN rep is more convincing than LB.
Mine for reference:
-Date mag AR looks very different in terms of colour
-Blue colour on dial and bezel look lighter/ more flat (closer to smurf execution)
-Dial printing looks FLAT. Gen has a glitter and is raised
-Rehaut engravings look thinner
-Texture of gold numbers in bezel insert are rough. Mine are smooth
-Dial index rims are thinner on gen than rep
The rep sel in the photos don't bother me too much on these as at least your getting a thicker gold wrap. If they were smart they would have used brass rather than steel on the sel like wm9 did.
IMO I would say the LN rep is more convincing than LB.
Mine for reference:






