-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
Post Pics Of Your $1000 Replicas
- Thread starter johnnydeepsea
- Start date
studio1one
Active Member
- 28/10/10
- 421
- 149
- 43
I know what's the meaning of flaw, but in the rep world the word "flaw" is mostly used in a certain way.
If I keep on using it that way, it's because if you want to use it to describe what differs from the norm, then we first have to agree on what the norm is, and from the lastest posts we're obviously far from here.
So untill we agree on what the norm is, I think it's useless to use "flaw" in that way.
Maybe that's just me, but I don't think it's that retarded.
If I keep on using it that way, it's because if you want to use it to describe what differs from the norm, then we first have to agree on what the norm is, and from the lastest posts we're obviously far from here.
So untill we agree on what the norm is, I think it's useless to use "flaw" in that way.
Maybe that's just me, but I don't think it's that retarded.
You both have valid points depending on how you apply the term "flaw" so the argument is kind of silly.
If by flaw you mean it in the dictionary sense of imperfection, then yes, gen Rolexes have flaws. They ALL have flaws, some would be microscopically tiny but as someone said, they are handmade pieces, they will all be flawed from the specification/design. That is a good thing, in my opinion. It makes your watch your watch. I would rather have a watch assembled by someone with care very slightly differently from the next one than have a watch assembled identically by a machine.
But if you mean flaw as in an error, as in the replica scene, then no, a genuine Rolex cannot have flaws. Flaw as it applies to a replica is an error in design compared to the genuine article, so a genuine article cannot, by definition, be flawed. It is a genuine Rolex, you can't compare it to itself. This is why we tend to tell people "Rolexes aren't perfect either" because noobs will go "MY LUME IS VERY SLIGHTLY THE WRONG SHADE OF GREEN" and anyone with a lick of sense knows that the lume is not uniform on gens either, so this isn't a replica flaw, but it is an imperfection, and should not be seen as a problem.
If by flaw you mean it in the dictionary sense of imperfection, then yes, gen Rolexes have flaws. They ALL have flaws, some would be microscopically tiny but as someone said, they are handmade pieces, they will all be flawed from the specification/design. That is a good thing, in my opinion. It makes your watch your watch. I would rather have a watch assembled by someone with care very slightly differently from the next one than have a watch assembled identically by a machine.
But if you mean flaw as in an error, as in the replica scene, then no, a genuine Rolex cannot have flaws. Flaw as it applies to a replica is an error in design compared to the genuine article, so a genuine article cannot, by definition, be flawed. It is a genuine Rolex, you can't compare it to itself. This is why we tend to tell people "Rolexes aren't perfect either" because noobs will go "MY LUME IS VERY SLIGHTLY THE WRONG SHADE OF GREEN" and anyone with a lick of sense knows that the lume is not uniform on gens either, so this isn't a replica flaw, but it is an imperfection, and should not be seen as a problem.
studio1one
Active Member
- 28/10/10
- 421
- 149
- 43
But that is what the word flaw means. If you buy a watch from an AD and it has problems like a misaligned hour marker you would describe them as flaws to the AD.
studio1one
Active Member
- 28/10/10
- 421
- 149
- 43
Anyway we are arguing semantics. Apologies if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.
What you are desceribing as flaws I would call tells, and leave the word flaw because it leaves too much room for ambuguity.
What you are desceribing as flaws I would call tells, and leave the word flaw because it leaves too much room for ambuguity.
Yes, this is an easy one.
Just read other people posts. Some seems to think that only what you can see with the naked eye is a flaw, some others think that what you can see with a loupe is a flaw, and some are even talking microscopes.
I have my definition of what a flaw is, but it's obviously not shared by everyone, so untill we can agree on something, I'll just refrain from using the word flaw in that way.
The Thread reads "Post Pics of your $1000 Replicas.....WOW...5 pages and not the first pic.
:jerry:
:jerry:
studio1one
Active Member
- 28/10/10
- 421
- 149
- 43
- 17/3/06
- 11,843
- 7
- 38
ok, now that we are all good lets see some high dollar reps. i will post a picture of my tw best tt blue sub with a replacement solid 18k and ss bracelet when i get home. i am at work and don't have a picture of it on this computer. there is more than 1,000.00 invested in it. :ttiwwop:
Franken IWC 3717
Gen case,
Gen case back,
Gen crystal,
Gen dial,
Gen crown,
Gen pushers,
Gen tubes,
Get gaskets,
Gen ss bracelet.
Rep hands
Gen case,
Gen case back,
Gen crystal,
Gen dial,
Gen crown,
Gen pushers,
Gen tubes,
Get gaskets,
Gen ss bracelet.
Rep hands
I will post pix of my RLX SUB Black Dial non Ceramic WM9v2 with RSH upgraded and moded parts, If I ever think of selling it. It would most likely be over $1000.00! I will post pics when I get home.