Has anyone noticed that if we look at a cross-section of the skeleton bridges the gen is a two-piece construction whereas this BBR rep is a single block?
Yeah i wrote that in either this review or the other one i did. Im guessing it would be harder for the factories to make a stable movement with the two plates not joined together. Its like it on the jbf too. That or they just looked at a picture of the front of the watch and assumed thats how it is.
More likely the latter . Not likely that they bought a gen piece and repped it.
Anadrol5 your 100% on the money, the v3 clasp, strap and honestly movement arent a patch on the v1. Feels like dh gate quality.
Excellent work on the review.
I suppose we have to distinguish between 'serious' reps and 'play' reps. Factories spend alot of money on some reps buying the gen, cloning movements etc.. as good as this rep looks you get the feeling that its not a serious rep. Its expensive not because its particularly well replicated but because of the tourbillon. I bought this watch with the thought of making this the jewel in the crown of my rep collection but unfortunately its not quite there. Oh well, there is always V4 to look forward to .
Is that a Gen? It really looks too good!!
Thats a rep, you can tell from a few things but the easiest is the front and back plates are joined together.
The skeleton frame is very shiny and bright. That's why I thought it was a Gen... I do see a lot of different pictures here (and also my QC pics) which do not show the shiny frame at all... But I guess that would be the right light conditions then.