ARF 16610 LV Submariner 904L Kermit photo review

[KJ2020]

I'm sooooo happy to finally see some picts of the New ARF watch.

So... what to do? I'm dreaming of a kermit... few options are available right now:

-pre-owned TC (v6?),almost twice as expensive as this ARF, with gen crystal, would probably need a slight polishing / rebrushing as it hasn't been babied, and insert is scratched
-this New ARF watch (any chance a gen crystal will fit without issue? The crystal being too high annoys me a little. It looks like a rep trying too hard to look gen.)
-keep looking around for a JF

what would be the general consensus?

It should take a gen crystal but If you put one in obviously you would want a shorter height gasket, that's part of the reason for doing it. Then you potentially run into date magnification issues as is being discussed in this thread. Many people replacing ARF 116710 LN (black GMT) crystals with gen or Prof ones are ending up with reduced date mag. You can't lower a crystal as much as this one needs without somehow addressing that date size reduction. Replacing the datewheel too might do it, it needs replacing anyway. ARF has combined these two parts (crystal and datewheel) to produce a 2.5x look so just changing one without the other might not retain that look. It is possible ARF is using a weaker mag cyclops like 2.0x to offset the great height so going closer with a 2.5x gen would work. We will have to wait for some folks to try this. It's baffling why ARF would make the crystal sit so high. On a pretty significant release like this, it's a real blunder IMO.

 

[m5smg2]

28

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

23

 

[m5smg2]

 

[mari115]

Thanks for your review!
I am curious if you can see any difference between 316 and 904L in real life!

There is no difference


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[m5smg2]

There is no difference


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I disagree 100%

 

[Nikz19]

I disagree 100%

Please explain, because I’ve seen many genuine bracelets close to 316L reps (most of ‘em being 93250) which have been through the same brushing process and I wasn’t able to tell any visual difference at all.

 

[KJ2020]

I have seen a distinctly different coloration on rep bracelets that claim to be 904L. The GMF "904" bracelets are much whiter in color than BP 316 ones. See if you can tell that from the pics below.

I am a die hard 904 nay-sayer on reps though as I've said frequently. I attribute any color difference to some other cheap metal or alloy additive to the factory recipe (like chromium) that achieves the look at little to no extra cost. This feature is pure price gouging IMO.

GMF 904

BP 316

 

[botsyboy]

There is no difference


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Oh yes there is a difference between genuine 904 Rolex steel and 316. I restore Rolex watches from time to time and 904 is far easier to work with and polish compared to 316 and in my hand the difference is night and day even on a rep.

 

[waterproofpt]

23

23 was done earlier in the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heska]

Are gen bracelet supposed to be 904 ? I have a gen clasp on jf links that have been rebrushed together and I honestly can’t see any difference in colors

 

[KJ2020]

Are gen bracelet supposed to be 904 ? I have a gen clasp on jf links that have been rebrushed together and I honestly can’t see any difference in colors

Check your clasp code for year, it may be 316L

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...ings-every-rolex-owner-should-know-2015-1?amp

 

[heska]

It’s a MA (2005)

 

[Nikz19]

For reference, see older JF 16610 lugs and crystal height.
They used to be so much better. ARF just screwed up, their case looks like a plexy case.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[mari115]

Oh yes there is a difference between genuine 904 Rolex steel and 316. I restore Rolex watches from time to time and 904 is far easier to work with and polish compared to 316 and in my hand the difference is night and day even on a rep.

I owned multiple gens and reps both 316L and 904L, I could never tell the difference in color, just in finishing, and that’s what i meant, there is no visual difference, and it’s definitely not a tell.
The only difference you could somewhat perceive would be the difference in grain for the satin, but color and reflections are the same for me.

The upgrade from 316 to 904 is just an unwanted and unneeded luxury “improvement” so that they can charge you 100$ more for a 2$ upgrade

I should look for some more, but I found this old pic of mine, gen vs rep, the color is basically the same, if you see differences they would be because of reflections and light

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[ROXOLO]

For reference, see older JF 16610 lugs and crystal height.
They used to be so much better. ARF just screwed up, their case looks like a plexy case.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I don't see that much difference except in crystal height, to be honest
yes lugs are a bit different but not "worse" when compared to gen IMHO, both are not 100% correct
Regarding crystal height and magnification: I think it's fair to assume rehaut height is the same, and case construction is the same, only external machining seems slightly different... thus if someone would install a gen (or aftermarket) gen spec crystal, OR a JF crystal, date mag should be ok? Can we assume the cyclops on the ARF crystal compensates the difference in height?

 

[Daryl70]

Watch looks good op I like it thanks for posting pics of it!

 

[KJ2020]

I don't see that much difference except in crystal height, to be honest
yes lugs are a bit different but not "worse" when compared to gen IMHO, both are not 100% correct
Regarding crystal height and magnification: I think it's fair to assume rehaut height is the same, and case construction is the same, only external machining seems slightly different... thus if someone would install a gen (or aftermarket) gen spec crystal, OR a JF crystal, date mag should be ok? Can we assume the cyclops on the ARF crystal compensates the difference in height?

It is possible ARF is using a weaker mag cyclops like 2.0x to offset the crystal height so going closer with a 2.5x gen might work. We will have to wait for some folks to try this. I don't think it safe to assume anything. Many ARF 116710 LNs won't take a gen-spec crystal without a .5x mag reduction. It may be a gasket height issue on the ones that are affected, I know some people got this done right.

 

[m5smg2]

 

[LetMeHearItNow]

Guesses as to which is 316 and 904? One is a JF and the other is the new ARF.

 

[m5smg2]

Guesses as to which is 316 and 904? One is a JF and the other is the new ARF.

Thanks for sharing. It’s a little hard to tell in that photo. With uniform lighting you can clearly see the difference.