Comparing an inexpensive black ceramic sub with an expensive sub.

[BustedFlush]

Ha, if I knew a watch maker that could do all that, I wouldn't have a broken date movement on my ETA, I can tell you that for sure.

 

[BlueRod37]

sorry to say that none of them have correct hands :-(

 

[shaunc]

sorry to say that none of them have correct hands :-(

not even the genuine example pictured??:thinking:

 

[studio1one]

Well this is the gen ceramic sub 116610.

For me, noticeable differences include;

Wokky rehaut - looks like a pie pan!
Off centre pearl - it's actually properly centred on the cheaper one and I think actually looks a little better. It's not perfect though.
I think the lume has been filled too deep on the more expensive version. There should be a noticable silver lining (white gold in the original) around them.
Dial text is crisper on the more expensive one, but the 'swiss made' on the cheaper is correct (might be variations I'm not aware of)

yeah except the text under Submariner is wasy too stacked up on the cheap one, much better on the more expensive one.

 

[BlueRod37]

Well this is the gen ceramic sub 116610.

For me, noticeable differences include;

Wokky rehaut - looks like a pie pan!
Off centre pearl - it's actually properly centred on the cheaper one and I think actually looks a little better. It's not perfect though.
I think the lume has been filled too deep on the more expensive version. There should be a noticable silver lining (white gold in the original) around them.
Dial text is crisper on the more expensive one, but the 'swiss made' on the cheaper is correct (might be variations I'm not aware of)

this not a gen.... i hope u didn't buy this.... well i'm only 99.99% positive... hands are not correct

not even the genuine example pictured??:thinking:

there is no gen sub on this thread.... yet

 

[Bonesey]

99.99% sure that it is a gen pulled from a reputable gen dealer website.

 

[BlueRod37]

u have a PM

 

[Bonesey]

And I still think you're wrong. The picture I posted is the 116610 LN the new ceramic version with the maxi dial and hands.

The makeover has officially happened to the all time classic Rolex Submariner Date, enter ref. 116610 LN. With opinions on both sides of the fence, I think the new Sub Date is a work of art. The old Submariner (ref. 16610) has been fazed out for 2010. This Submariner has “LN” at the end of reference number. LN is short for Lunette Noir, french for black bezel.
Finally, the maxi-dial has made it to the this Submariner in stainless steel. In the past, the 16610LV (green anniversary edition) Submariner was the only stainless steel Submariner offered with the maxi-dial. The maxi-dial offers larger indices, larger mercedes hour hand, and larger minute hand. This equates to an easier to read watch and more SuperLuminova, looks amazing.

Sauce : http://watchesandreviews.com/Rolex.html

Just to add to this, the picture I posted also has AR underneath the cyclops which I've not seen on a factory rep yet and would have to be a custom job.

 

[jnkay]

whoever is saying the picture posted of the gen is not actually a gen is poorly informed. It is clearly a gen. There is no question whatsoever. It is the rep that has the wrong hands (the hour hand is thinner than the minute hand, unlike the GMT-IIc).

 

[nospamno]

Yep, held my gen next to the computer...The dial on the cheap one wins.

LOL, yep! Here are two examples. The Rolex Submariner 16610 vs. the Rolex Submariner 116610.

 

[GWT#1]

has anyone offered to look real close at serial of "gen" looks like it reads from what I can tell look real close v6468?? that is a "rep"! Thats what i see when I look but I may be cocked eyed??