ARF LN insert is really nice IMO bro. I could see not bothering with a gen if you had one of these.
By far the ARF is the best LN insert but (now I haven’t seen one in person) but from what I’ve seen there is always an angle where something looks too thin. I haven’t had it/seen it/help it in person and I know things are different in person. But when you look at a gen ln insert, for the most part all the inlaid numbers and markers look even from almost all angles.
I don’t know if it’s the angle of the insert or the depth of the inlay into the ceramic, but when you ive seen pics of ARF, different numbers look thinner than others or just thinner than they’re supposed to. Whether it is the vertical cuts of the 1s around the insert, or the serifs, or the horizontal lines of the 2s. It’s just like one of those subtle little things that Rolex manages to address that’s just difficult to duplicate for whatever reason. It’s subtle and dependent on the angle.
but yeah, I could probably live contently with an ARF. But every other factory really isn’t even in the bull park and kind of enough to clump them all together as “short of the mark”.
but it was in one of these threads that I mentioned I think it is the insert alone that sets ARF apart on the GMTs. I think most consider ARF as the best out of the box GMT and I think it’s mostly because of the insert andif ARF and vrf had the same insert, vrf would probably be considered the best out of the box. It’s that one detail that pushes them so far over the edge.
