How do you knw they really got a Gen to replicate this?
At the end of the day, I guess its about trust.
Statements like "replicated with the gen as reference" is rather arbitrary IMHO. I believe that a lot of the times, the makers use pictures of gens instead.
For this model, I am inclined to believe that they had a gen for reference given the engineering of the cermet material and color for the bezel, which is not new in watches, but used occasionally by Hublot, JLC, and yes AP. The dial details are also comparatively intricate, and does require a fastidious eye to replicate to a reasonable extent. Likewise for the rotor and other details. Granted, at this point, we do not know exactly how accurate the rep is in terms of finishing, sheen, color etc vs the gen. We could only spot the obvious flaws from the pics, so till now, we would not know if they used an actual gen watch as a reference to replicate this, or even id they did, whether a good job is done.
So is this watch worth $748 to me? I think it is. Is it perfect? Hell no. But bearing in mind the actual cost of the gen, we must not forget that at the end of the day, we are talking about a replica. We must not lose sight of the fact that replicas would never be perfect, but rather, intended, in varying degrees, as an emulation of the genuine article which we can wear for our own pleasure on our wrist. If the bumblebee can command a similar price, I do not see why the MS should not. Flaws? yes I concede that this model is flawed. But tell me that this is not a stunner on the wrist, even with thick datewheel and subdial rings? I wonder who would be able to spot these within social interaction distance. What they would see is a very nice AP on the wrist 99% of the time. The 1% would probably be a fellow rep enthusiast so I do not see a problem there either.
