Here's a quick comparison of my gen RM 005, with the RM 005 with 21J movement that's available through most dealers.
Not surprisingly, you really can't compare the workmanship of a 70k watch with a <200$ rep.
Though i must add that, the rep i have is a pretty darn good one, if it weren't for a few details which i will point out.
On to the pics!
Gen on right.
1. As you can see, there's a obvious difference in size, but i suspect they were following the dimensions of an RM010. The dial, however, clearly states it's an RM 005. I'm chalking this up to a 'mistake' more than a 'flaw/tell'.
2. 'Bezel' screws are of the different, with the gen being flat and the rep being protruding.
3. Dial is much clearer on the gen, that's probably due to the strong AR on the gen, printing seems sharper on the gen too.
Gen on right.
1. As mentioned, no AR on rep.
2. Slimmer hands on the rep.
Side constructions are surprisingly accurate. Size difference due to model differences.
1. Movement is a major tell.
Good points about the rep:
Dial fonts are accurate.
Case construction is quite good.
Spring loaded deployant buckle is unique
Dial has a nice 3D/layered effect similar to the gen. (iphone camera can't capture that)
What can be improved:
1. Much better strap please. The gen strap blends into the case perfectly, but the rep strap, on top of being of a disgustingly low quality, is too narrow for the case, while the gen tapers a little. For reference, there's a much better rubber strap for the rep RM 11's, if anyone's interested.
2. AR would go a long way to improving this rep.
Final thoughts:
Very good bang for buck for a RM watch. Let's face it, probably 1 out of 10 people would realize this is an expensive watch, and out of those, few would be able to tell from a glance. Don't bank on this rep fooling a WIS or any AD though.
I've always loved RM watches, and if they ever came out with a 1:1 version, i'll be all for it. But as it stands, they still have a way to go before this can fool anyway.
Hope you guys enjoyed the review as much as i did writing it!
Not surprisingly, you really can't compare the workmanship of a 70k watch with a <200$ rep.
Though i must add that, the rep i have is a pretty darn good one, if it weren't for a few details which i will point out.
On to the pics!
Gen on right.
1. As you can see, there's a obvious difference in size, but i suspect they were following the dimensions of an RM010. The dial, however, clearly states it's an RM 005. I'm chalking this up to a 'mistake' more than a 'flaw/tell'.
2. 'Bezel' screws are of the different, with the gen being flat and the rep being protruding.
3. Dial is much clearer on the gen, that's probably due to the strong AR on the gen, printing seems sharper on the gen too.
Gen on right.
1. As mentioned, no AR on rep.
2. Slimmer hands on the rep.
Side constructions are surprisingly accurate. Size difference due to model differences.
1. Movement is a major tell.
Good points about the rep:
Dial fonts are accurate.
Case construction is quite good.
Spring loaded deployant buckle is unique
Dial has a nice 3D/layered effect similar to the gen. (iphone camera can't capture that)
What can be improved:
1. Much better strap please. The gen strap blends into the case perfectly, but the rep strap, on top of being of a disgustingly low quality, is too narrow for the case, while the gen tapers a little. For reference, there's a much better rubber strap for the rep RM 11's, if anyone's interested.
2. AR would go a long way to improving this rep.
Final thoughts:
Very good bang for buck for a RM watch. Let's face it, probably 1 out of 10 people would realize this is an expensive watch, and out of those, few would be able to tell from a glance. Don't bank on this rep fooling a WIS or any AD though.
I've always loved RM watches, and if they ever came out with a 1:1 version, i'll be all for it. But as it stands, they still have a way to go before this can fool anyway.
Hope you guys enjoyed the review as much as i did writing it!
opcorn:
