It is somewhat funny that members are pointing out the various flaws but ignoring the elephant in the room.
The 26238 visual frontal differences vs the 26170/26470 are:
- sec@6 VS sec@12
- symmetrical subdial spacings vs asymmetrical ones
- date window position
- date depth position
- date font and size
So it’s wrong for the factories to list them as an “A4404” when they don’t even try to get the running seconds to be at the correct position. This they can definitely do, it’s the same as shifting the A7750 natural sec@9 to 6 instead of 12. Even better, the subdial positions should be correct and same for the date window position. The datewheel font is nothing different to replicate.
My point is that if the factory is spending time to churn out the 26238 reps and trying to make the correct dials and straps and whatnot, why ignore all the primary features of the 26238 ROO series? AP has shifted the sec@12 to the sec@6 for ROOs and not every member seems to have grasped this fundamental change. For me, this needs to be replicated first and then the rest of the features will follow naturally. I would argue that the 26238 is easier to replicate given the non modular movement (no sunken datewheel), the natural equidistant subdial spacings of the A7750 movement and the date window position. It seems that AP has ironically made the 26238 ROO easier to replicate than the 26470/26170 ROOs. The rest are a matter of visual replication like date font or color etc.
So as long as the 26238 replica does not feature a second @6, I won’t advise anyone to purchase it unless one is really into the color scheme of the fantasy watch.
