Afaik its modded 3kf movement, the dial side should be the same
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
First look: The VSV NAUTILUS 5711/1Am - A true superclone and possibly the best Patek rep ever.
- Thread starter trailboss99
- Start date
This is important to remember if you do these sorts of comparisons.
The impact of different lenses and distances from watch to sensor can be mitigated (but not completely eliminated) if you compare only measurements which are on the same plane and parallel with the sensor. So for example, comparing the size of the brushed bezel area "B" to the width of the crystal.
Then either B / width or (B+B) / width for a ratio of how fat the B section of the bezel appears in relation to the crystal size, which I think would provide a relatively conclusive result as to whether a bezel appears "fat".
The impact of different lenses and distances from watch to sensor can be mitigated (but not completely eliminated) if you compare only measurements which are on the same plane and parallel with the sensor. So for example, comparing the size of the brushed bezel area "B" to the width of the crystal.
Then either B / width or (B+B) / width for a ratio of how fat the B section of the bezel appears in relation to the crystal size, which I think would provide a relatively conclusive result as to whether a bezel appears "fat".
Be careful, however, the notion of lense, distance, reframing, etc. can have influence on the perceived size.
For example, the same face with different lense :
Well not exaclty, which is why the other poster and I commented as we did.
I want to preface this by saying I'm EXTREMELY grateful for such comparisons being done, and appreciative of what you've done - I don't want to be dismissive or diminish that in any way, My goal is just to help point where the results may not be providing as accurate a picture as they perhaps could be.
In your tests you measured "A", which is not parallel to the sensor and not on the same plane, and then you measured the overall width "D" from the outer edge of each "A", again on a different plane from "B". With different distances from the watch to the sensor, this will provide less consistent results due to the differences discussed in the previous responses.
By just using "B" and the distance between the two "B" faces you will notice less impact from different focal lengths / distances.
Consider the picture of the face with different focal lengths used in the example. If you measure the width of each eye and the distance between the eyes, they're relatively consistent because they're almost on the same plane and almost parallel with the sensor. Now, if you try to include the distance from the outer edge of the eye to the outer edge of his ears and use the width between the outer edge of the ears in that measurement, the accuracy goes out the window.
The only reason I commented (and clearly I don't comment often) is because I see the effort that went into making the comparison and providing results to the community. I just want to introduce a methodology that may produce results which provide you and the community with a greater level of confidence by minimising any potential for errors induced by different distances to the target.
Ok. I posted the pics of the watches, too. Would you please do comparisons with your method?
Ok, so measuring using just the flat brushed section of bezel as B1 and B2, with the distance between them as D, I did the ratio (B1+B2)/D and found:
I didn't measure 6 or 8 as 6 is a render and I'm not convinced about 8 being a photo.
Three decimals of accuracy exceeds either the precision or the care that I put into measuring (particularly for the lower res photos), so those will all be +/- a bit, but what this shows is pretty much in line with what commenters have been saying - the B portion of the bezel appears fatter on these reps than on gen watches. There is some variation on the gen to be sure, as well as a question as to whether any may have been polished, but the gen watches are falling at or below 0.24, and the brushed facets on the rep bezel measure a good 5% thicker than the fattest looking gens.
It's not a great amount of difference, but it's a very prominent part of the watch, so to me it appears incredibly obvious.
| Gen 1 | .239 |
| Gen 2 | .231 |
| Gen 3 | .238 |
| Gen 4 | .235 |
| Gen 5 | .221 |
| Gen 7 | .225 |
| Rep 9 | .252 |
| Rep 10 | .251 |
I didn't measure 6 or 8 as 6 is a render and I'm not convinced about 8 being a photo.
Three decimals of accuracy exceeds either the precision or the care that I put into measuring (particularly for the lower res photos), so those will all be +/- a bit, but what this shows is pretty much in line with what commenters have been saying - the B portion of the bezel appears fatter on these reps than on gen watches. There is some variation on the gen to be sure, as well as a question as to whether any may have been polished, but the gen watches are falling at or below 0.24, and the brushed facets on the rep bezel measure a good 5% thicker than the fattest looking gens.
It's not a great amount of difference, but it's a very prominent part of the watch, so to me it appears incredibly obvious.
I would encourage anyone to give this a whirl and see how the measurements stack up for them.
I'll throw a caution with respect to this particular website image shown below, as there is some very strange lighting anomaly or watermark used which makes the inside edge of B much brighter on each side with a strange a curved area, but the actual inside edge of the brushed section can be seen within that brightened section, so don't only measure to the edge of that brighter section:
I'll throw a caution with respect to this particular website image shown below, as there is some very strange lighting anomaly or watermark used which makes the inside edge of B much brighter on each side with a strange a curved area, but the actual inside edge of the brushed section can be seen within that brightened section, so don't only measure to the edge of that brighter section:
I can't edit my previous comment, but I also followed the same methodology for your PF and your modified 3KF. The PF v2 scored on the thin end of the scale at a 0.210, and the bezel-modded 3KF v2 hit right in the sweet spot at 0.233.
Yes, I did my measurements with the same way.I would encourage anyone to give this a whirl and see how the measurements stack up for them.
I'll throw a caution with respect to this particular website image shown below, as there is some very strange lighting anomaly or watermark used which makes the inside edge of B much brighter on each side with a strange a curved area, but the actual inside edge of the brushed section can be seen within that brightened section, so don't only measure to the edge of that brighter section:
Thank for your great input. Your method is a correct way to get an impression for the numerical dimensions of the flat brushed portion of the bezel from photos. However, for me the polished/brushed ratio of the bezel is also matters when in person or from a pic I subjectively consider how "fat" is the bezel of a particular watch. I very know that the polished parts of the bezel can be distorted compared to the brushed parts in pics but I think taking those parts into consideration may also be useful.
Btw, when I have enough time I'll include your results in my table and post it here.
@psychospike at ChazingTime has sent me the first example of the new VSV Nautilus and it may well be the best replicated out-of-the-box Patek ever. This thing isn't cheap but it's a work of art. You know I don't use the word Superclone lightly but this really is one.
They start with the base VSV 5711 and CNC machine the case and bracelet to perfection then rebrush, they fit a PPF dial (because it's the best blue dial out there), the hands are VSV and the datewheel is from SV. Therefore they have used all the best possible parts and then fitted the superb (and very expensive) VSV superclone MVT, the most accurate movement in a Patec rep short of what Jewellery and Watch use and those are 20k plus. The re-machined bracelet is then polished and the brushing done on the case to produce what is hands down the best OOTB Patek I have ever seen and I'm a Nautilus fan. yes, it's close to three grand but wow, it's amazing. It's as good (or, TBH better) as any modded Nautilus I've ever seen.
I'll use the QC pics here because they do far more justice to the watch than any I could take. If you want the ultimate Nautilus rep, this is it. I'll be interested to see what the Patek experts have to say but I can't find fault myself, it's a thing of beauty, everything that could be done to improve the base watch has been done and done right.
I'll add timegraph results as soon as I have the chance to run it as I'd rather use my own device rather than rely on CT's.
You can find ChazingTime's listing here: https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone/
Hey TB. Any update on this? Patiently awaiting your in hand pics and time graph results.
so it looks like the watch is sold out:
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone-2/
the next closest equivalent modified watch with Buff dial is:
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone/
I dont think AMF are taking anymore orders, and price is similar.
So what do you guys think? Imo the CT vsv watch is superb.
talk me out of it?
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone-2/
the next closest equivalent modified watch with Buff dial is:
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone/
I dont think AMF are taking anymore orders, and price is similar.
So what do you guys think? Imo the CT vsv watch is superb.
talk me out of it?
Not sure what your question is about but if it is should i go for the second one as an alternative, i would reply say:
This dial really sucks to be honest and is nowhere a color match with any 5711 generation in any light condition....
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone-2/
While this is one 's color is close to excellent imo ....
https://chazingtime08.co/product/custom-modded-nautilus-5711-1a-on-ss-bracelet-vsv324-super-clone/
Yes this is exactly what I was asking. I have been watching a few video reviews and to me the buff dial watch looks very close to gen. A sort of blue but with dark teal undertones.
I have been trawling through the threads and many don't like the buff dial. Just was wondering what other people's thoughts were.
Thanks for the reply.
Only the first Buff dial had a teal tint and it's not in production anymore. So far every other dial skews purple.
I don't even know what to buy now. It seems I find a direction and then a hurdle pops up.
What 5711 would you buy and more importantly why?
I kind of gave up on blue dials and am giving the white one a go. 3KF base, PPF dial, Buff hands and date.