I would love to post a photo review of the Explorer I 214270 rep vs gen. Unfortunately I can't upload pics.
So here is a review in words:
I bought the Noob 214270 rep, which according to the website is an accurate rep of the genuine. When viewed side by side that is not the case.
The lugs of the rep are noticeably thicker than gen. The gen has delicately shaped lugs whereas the rep's are just thick. I had the rep long before the gen and the first thing I noticed was that the case looked 'elongated'. I assumed that was how the gen looked. It's not noticeable in pics but in person it is. Now that I have the gen to compare to I understand why. The thick lugs makes it look like a continuation of the case so the case looks elongated.
Rep on the left, gen on the right
The hands of the rep are bigger than the gen. The ball on the end of the seconds hand is bigger, the mercedes logo on the hour hand is bigger and the minute hand is wider than the gen.
The printing on the dial is not as precise. Also the rep has a thicker font.
The laser etched crown on the crystal is easily seen on the rep. On the gen it requires a certain angle of light before you can faintly see it.
The crown is slightly larger on the rep.
The total thickness of the watch is slightly more on the rep.
The logo on the clasp of the rep is a bit rough looking.
The back of the fliplock on the clasp easily scratches the bracelet when the fliplock is open. On the gen there are no scratches from the fliplock...maybe the 904 steel is harder?
The writing on the inside of the clasp is the wrong shade on the rep. It's a light grey whereas the gen is darker.
The end links don't fit as well. The gen end links follow just below the curve of the lugs so you can feel the edge of the lugs with your fingernail. The curve of the rep end links starts off just below the curve then rises above it and ends just below it again. Not noticeable unless you really take a close look.
The rep lume is blue whereas the gen is more of a turquoise. The rep lume is also not as bright.
And then the obvious difference in movement. My rep has the ETA 2836 movement. Time setting is anti-clockwise which seems to be the norm for all ETA movements. You also need to pull the crown out to position 2 to set the time. Position 1 I assume is the defunct date setting. Hand winding is also noticeably rougher on the ETA movement.
Overall the rep would pass as a gen at a glance. But if one were to examine it closely and know what to look for, it wouldn't pass. With my rep and gen I can pick one up and instantly know which is which.
Hope you liked my review!
Edit: Interesting...now it lets me upload pics.
So here is a review in words:
I bought the Noob 214270 rep, which according to the website is an accurate rep of the genuine. When viewed side by side that is not the case.
The lugs of the rep are noticeably thicker than gen. The gen has delicately shaped lugs whereas the rep's are just thick. I had the rep long before the gen and the first thing I noticed was that the case looked 'elongated'. I assumed that was how the gen looked. It's not noticeable in pics but in person it is. Now that I have the gen to compare to I understand why. The thick lugs makes it look like a continuation of the case so the case looks elongated.
Rep on the left, gen on the right
The hands of the rep are bigger than the gen. The ball on the end of the seconds hand is bigger, the mercedes logo on the hour hand is bigger and the minute hand is wider than the gen.
The printing on the dial is not as precise. Also the rep has a thicker font.
The laser etched crown on the crystal is easily seen on the rep. On the gen it requires a certain angle of light before you can faintly see it.
The crown is slightly larger on the rep.
The total thickness of the watch is slightly more on the rep.
The logo on the clasp of the rep is a bit rough looking.
The back of the fliplock on the clasp easily scratches the bracelet when the fliplock is open. On the gen there are no scratches from the fliplock...maybe the 904 steel is harder?
The writing on the inside of the clasp is the wrong shade on the rep. It's a light grey whereas the gen is darker.
The end links don't fit as well. The gen end links follow just below the curve of the lugs so you can feel the edge of the lugs with your fingernail. The curve of the rep end links starts off just below the curve then rises above it and ends just below it again. Not noticeable unless you really take a close look.
The rep lume is blue whereas the gen is more of a turquoise. The rep lume is also not as bright.
And then the obvious difference in movement. My rep has the ETA 2836 movement. Time setting is anti-clockwise which seems to be the norm for all ETA movements. You also need to pull the crown out to position 2 to set the time. Position 1 I assume is the defunct date setting. Hand winding is also noticeably rougher on the ETA movement.
Overall the rep would pass as a gen at a glance. But if one were to examine it closely and know what to look for, it wouldn't pass. With my rep and gen I can pick one up and instantly know which is which.
Hope you liked my review!
Edit: Interesting...now it lets me upload pics.
