Is this PO a rep?

[Martyd3]

 

[madSub]

I'llbe the first to say yes. Crown not like gen if 42.5mm watch... no A/R perhaps??

Just my .02

 

[kirev]

Looks like the minute hand is a little short too...hard to tell from the pix

 

[fine dd]

The genuine have serial numbers, the reps not. Why??

 

[supermanx]

Plus the lack of ar and the pearl is off.

 

[seank]

Its real difficult to tell from the angle the picture is taken. You are right that from that angle you should be able to see the AR coating. The bezel being misaligned is always a dead giveaway but I'm not sure if its misaligned or just off by a click. As to how the pearl looks it does look a little flat but again that could be the way the picture was taken. Without seeing a dead on shot or a side shot is tough to tell. I also have never seen the PO with gold hands. So my .02 cent would say rep.




Sean K

 

[supermanx]

Gold hands are from the lighting, another sign of no ar. Pearl is actually easier to tell from an angle as on the gen the luminous is recessed and covered with a clear layer.

 

[robb79]

The relief valve looks off as well.

 

[seank]

The relief valve looks off as well.

How can you tell at that angle? It distorts the perspective so bad. I mean I'm pretty sure its a rep but the pix suck.



Sean K

 

[ken72]

I agree about the pearl. thats always a give away for me on the omegas. they have a very shallow pearl with a thick ring around it.

 

[mdg137]

The absence of the serial number is the easiest tell. No need to analyze anything else--

PO pearls arent just shallow, theyre concave.

 

[pman]

Here's photo of a gen. I think the watch shown above is a rep. For me the biggest "tell" is the minute hands. On the gen. the hand reaches the top of the minute markets. This watch does not.