Hi guys!
I thought it might be interesting for U1 lovers to see side by side comparison of GENuine and REPlica of this great Sinn model. So there are two big tough guys, real tool watches, both on rubber straps but only one of them has a true German soul. Let’s take a closer look.
About GEN:
Sinn Watches was founded in 1961 by Helmut Sinn. In 1994 Helmut Sinn sold his Watch Company to Lothar Schmidt, an ex IWC engineer who has since added many new technologies and innovations to create a range of Sinn Watches which will perform in extreme circumstances.
Sinn U1 is probably the most recognizable watch from this manufacturer. It’s pure classic toolwatch. With this diving watch Sinn engineers was looking for the materials that will give it superior resistance to external influences under extreme conditions of use. They found a steel with the desired resistance at the German submarine yards. The steel manufacturers for these shipyards supply small quantities of the original steel of the current German submarine production exclusively to SINN for making diving watches — the very steel of which the external hulls of the German Navy's new submarine class 212, which currently REPresents the most advanced non-nuclear submarines in the world, are made.
This original submarine steel is not only extraordinarily seawater-resistant but is also of the highest non-magnetic quality without any residual magnetism. Another advantage of this steel is its outstanding ability to be combined with the TEGIMENT Technology. Thus the rotating bezel of the diving watch U1 is surface-hardened as standard to 1500 Vickers. Likewise, the anti-reflective coat of the flat sapphire crystal glass has an extreme hardness of 1800 HV.
The water-resistance and pressure resistance of 100 bar (= 1000 m water depth) was certified for the diving watch U1 by Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg. The safety test pressure used for this purpose was 125 bar.
Size: 43mm without crown
Case thickness: 14.3 mm
Crown screwable
Movement: Selitta SW 200-1 (ETA2824-2 in older models)
Double AR sapphire crystal
Weight: 113g without strap and 189 g with the rubber strap and buckle
About REP:
This is what the dealers say on their websites:
Best replication in this year! (Note that it was a couple of years before). Made with A genuine watch as Ref. Completely stripped down for this replication exercise... Parts completely interchangeable with genuine Watch. Case size is 1 : 1 Exact replication as per the genuine
Is it true? We heard a lot of BS about 1:1 replication, right? Let’s see.
First glance – see, it’s looking good! Almost the same watches.
Second glance… well…. You can easily point which one is REP and which is GEN, right?
(GEN is left)
Ok, time for detailed comparison.
(GEN is left)
There are many differences – some of them are very obvious and some are non relevant. Let’s try go through all main imperfections of this best replication of the year (2009?).
The weight:
Sinn U1 REP is very solid and heavy. Regarding weight it has a real GEN-like feeling. Although it’s still not as heavy as GEN! It’s 10 gram lighter than GEN. 177 g vs. 187 g with the rubber strap.
The colour (steel):
Yes, it’s one of the most obvious tells. You can’t replicate U-Boot steel using regular 316L steel. You can see at the pictures above that GEN U1 is darker. Also the case finish structure differs. It will be also visible at the next pictures.
It’s pretty easy to see when you look at both watches side by side but when you see only REP one you don’t have reference. So this tell can be missed by an untrained eye
The bezel:
Honestly this is what distracts me from this REP. The bezel is very far from 1:1 and it’s hard to miss. REP bezel in side by side comparison looks a bit like toy. I mean... it screams fake!
First of all bezel fonts. The fonts are different and they are much bigger than in GEN. Second thing – the marks are bigger and wider (especially red ones). Third are underlines of 5, 10 and 15 index on the bezel – much too long! Especially under 15. And last but not least the shape of bezel teeth. It’s completely different. In GEN U1 the pits are bigger and deeper.
GEN above the REP:
Gen is left:
The pearl:
Together with the rest of the bezel – an obvious tell. There’s nothing to write about, just take a look:
The dial:
The dial in this REP would be perfect if the hour markers lume wasn’t greenish. The writings are almost spot on. The markers shape is a little wrong but it’s nothing serious. But the greenish lume… gosh… why didn’t they use white one? The markers in GEN are white in the daylight. White-white. Not greenish-white like in REP. And this is visible.
Another thing is the different shade of red color in red writings on the dial. The REP is darker red. It’s pretty nice color though and I think I like it even more than GEN red which is lighter but it’s still not 1:1 replication. The same things with the red color regarding hands.
The date font is also little different in REP and the datewheel is a little bit recessed comparing to GEN. But is a non issue I think. Nothing serious.
GEN is above the REP:
The hands:
Generally they are well replicated excluding the red color which is darker than in GEN. You can also see that on the central second hand the white bar is longer than in GEN. And why the hell it’s lumed blue?!
The crystal (AR):
This REP is known as having one of the best AR out of box on the REP market. Indeed the AR is beautiful, double sided with strong purple tint. The crystal transparency is great and the AR is very efficient. And it would be spot on if there wasn’t such strong purple hue. GEN AR is also bluish / purple but not that strong! So… another BIG tell. See side by side comparison:
The lume:
The lume in REP sucks. It’s weak and grainy on the hands. The pearl almost don’t glow at all. And the seconds hand has blue lume and I can’t get it why.
The case and crown:
Although it’s very good replicated you can still find some tells without much effort.
The case color is what was described before. Also the lugs shape is different. In GEN the lugs are a little smoother and REP are bolder. Not a big difference though. GEN is on the right.
The crown has a bit different shape and it’s less detailed engraved.
You can also notice that near the crown the case is profiled differently in REP – the flat part is longer.
The engravings between lugs are also different. Well… maybe the older models of GEN U1 has the “Germany†engraved between lugs. Mine is from 2012 and it says only SVG (or SUG). The REP engravings are also deeper (which is quite rare in REP world).
The other side:
As you can see the shape between lugs is very not 1:1.
It’s ok from this profile
The caseback:
Well… it’s ok but not perfect. The main problem here is the font in “1000m†engraving. Besides this – not bad.
Look at the colour difference!
The rubber strap and buckle:
The rubber itself is great in REP. It not as soft and gentle as GEN but it’s still fantastic for REP. The size, shape and the writings are really 1:1. I think it can be easily used by GEN owners as a replacement aftermarket rubber
The buckle is the other thing. It has a different construction and feels cheap comparing to GEN.
Yes, GEN is left REP buckle has deeper engravings than GEN, unbelievable!
This triangle on REP buckle is a sign of TEGIMENT technology. Mine GEN buckle is not tegimented that’s why the sign is not present.
REP below GEN
As you can see there are little screws on the sides of GEN buckle. REP doesn’t have it.
Summary:
REP U1 is a nice watch. It’s solid, heavy, very well finished. It has a great rubber strap and great AR on the crystal. It has a unique style and can give a lot of fun to its owner. BUT it’s very far from 1:1 replication and definitely not a SUPER-REP. There are tells in every little part of it and the rubber seems to be the best replicated element.
The REP marked gone a long distance since 2008/2009. Today’s REPs are almost perfect. And it’s a shame that there are not any V2 and V3 version of this beautiful piece. I think that it would be very easy to improve this one – white lume on hour markers and improved bezel numbers and marks would be enough for the first step. Maybe noob maker (Mr Crème de la Crème) should put his hands on it… Then I would consider selling my GEN and stay with the REP.
But until it will happen the GEN stays with me
I thought it might be interesting for U1 lovers to see side by side comparison of GENuine and REPlica of this great Sinn model. So there are two big tough guys, real tool watches, both on rubber straps but only one of them has a true German soul. Let’s take a closer look.
About GEN:
Sinn Watches was founded in 1961 by Helmut Sinn. In 1994 Helmut Sinn sold his Watch Company to Lothar Schmidt, an ex IWC engineer who has since added many new technologies and innovations to create a range of Sinn Watches which will perform in extreme circumstances.
Sinn U1 is probably the most recognizable watch from this manufacturer. It’s pure classic toolwatch. With this diving watch Sinn engineers was looking for the materials that will give it superior resistance to external influences under extreme conditions of use. They found a steel with the desired resistance at the German submarine yards. The steel manufacturers for these shipyards supply small quantities of the original steel of the current German submarine production exclusively to SINN for making diving watches — the very steel of which the external hulls of the German Navy's new submarine class 212, which currently REPresents the most advanced non-nuclear submarines in the world, are made.
This original submarine steel is not only extraordinarily seawater-resistant but is also of the highest non-magnetic quality without any residual magnetism. Another advantage of this steel is its outstanding ability to be combined with the TEGIMENT Technology. Thus the rotating bezel of the diving watch U1 is surface-hardened as standard to 1500 Vickers. Likewise, the anti-reflective coat of the flat sapphire crystal glass has an extreme hardness of 1800 HV.
The water-resistance and pressure resistance of 100 bar (= 1000 m water depth) was certified for the diving watch U1 by Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg. The safety test pressure used for this purpose was 125 bar.
Size: 43mm without crown
Case thickness: 14.3 mm
Crown screwable
Movement: Selitta SW 200-1 (ETA2824-2 in older models)
Double AR sapphire crystal
Weight: 113g without strap and 189 g with the rubber strap and buckle
About REP:
This is what the dealers say on their websites:
Best replication in this year! (Note that it was a couple of years before). Made with A genuine watch as Ref. Completely stripped down for this replication exercise... Parts completely interchangeable with genuine Watch. Case size is 1 : 1 Exact replication as per the genuine
Is it true? We heard a lot of BS about 1:1 replication, right? Let’s see.
First glance – see, it’s looking good! Almost the same watches.
Second glance… well…. You can easily point which one is REP and which is GEN, right?
(GEN is left)
Ok, time for detailed comparison.
(GEN is left)
There are many differences – some of them are very obvious and some are non relevant. Let’s try go through all main imperfections of this best replication of the year (2009?).
The weight:
Sinn U1 REP is very solid and heavy. Regarding weight it has a real GEN-like feeling. Although it’s still not as heavy as GEN! It’s 10 gram lighter than GEN. 177 g vs. 187 g with the rubber strap.
The colour (steel):
Yes, it’s one of the most obvious tells. You can’t replicate U-Boot steel using regular 316L steel. You can see at the pictures above that GEN U1 is darker. Also the case finish structure differs. It will be also visible at the next pictures.
It’s pretty easy to see when you look at both watches side by side but when you see only REP one you don’t have reference. So this tell can be missed by an untrained eye
The bezel:
Honestly this is what distracts me from this REP. The bezel is very far from 1:1 and it’s hard to miss. REP bezel in side by side comparison looks a bit like toy. I mean... it screams fake!
First of all bezel fonts. The fonts are different and they are much bigger than in GEN. Second thing – the marks are bigger and wider (especially red ones). Third are underlines of 5, 10 and 15 index on the bezel – much too long! Especially under 15. And last but not least the shape of bezel teeth. It’s completely different. In GEN U1 the pits are bigger and deeper.
GEN above the REP:
Gen is left:
The pearl:
Together with the rest of the bezel – an obvious tell. There’s nothing to write about, just take a look:
The dial:
The dial in this REP would be perfect if the hour markers lume wasn’t greenish. The writings are almost spot on. The markers shape is a little wrong but it’s nothing serious. But the greenish lume… gosh… why didn’t they use white one? The markers in GEN are white in the daylight. White-white. Not greenish-white like in REP. And this is visible.
Another thing is the different shade of red color in red writings on the dial. The REP is darker red. It’s pretty nice color though and I think I like it even more than GEN red which is lighter but it’s still not 1:1 replication. The same things with the red color regarding hands.
The date font is also little different in REP and the datewheel is a little bit recessed comparing to GEN. But is a non issue I think. Nothing serious.
GEN is above the REP:
The hands:
Generally they are well replicated excluding the red color which is darker than in GEN. You can also see that on the central second hand the white bar is longer than in GEN. And why the hell it’s lumed blue?!
The crystal (AR):
This REP is known as having one of the best AR out of box on the REP market. Indeed the AR is beautiful, double sided with strong purple tint. The crystal transparency is great and the AR is very efficient. And it would be spot on if there wasn’t such strong purple hue. GEN AR is also bluish / purple but not that strong! So… another BIG tell. See side by side comparison:
The lume:
The lume in REP sucks. It’s weak and grainy on the hands. The pearl almost don’t glow at all. And the seconds hand has blue lume and I can’t get it why.
The case and crown:
Although it’s very good replicated you can still find some tells without much effort.
The case color is what was described before. Also the lugs shape is different. In GEN the lugs are a little smoother and REP are bolder. Not a big difference though. GEN is on the right.
The crown has a bit different shape and it’s less detailed engraved.
You can also notice that near the crown the case is profiled differently in REP – the flat part is longer.
The engravings between lugs are also different. Well… maybe the older models of GEN U1 has the “Germany†engraved between lugs. Mine is from 2012 and it says only SVG (or SUG). The REP engravings are also deeper (which is quite rare in REP world).
The other side:
As you can see the shape between lugs is very not 1:1.
It’s ok from this profile
The caseback:
Well… it’s ok but not perfect. The main problem here is the font in “1000m†engraving. Besides this – not bad.
Look at the colour difference!
The rubber strap and buckle:
The rubber itself is great in REP. It not as soft and gentle as GEN but it’s still fantastic for REP. The size, shape and the writings are really 1:1. I think it can be easily used by GEN owners as a replacement aftermarket rubber
The buckle is the other thing. It has a different construction and feels cheap comparing to GEN.
Yes, GEN is left
REP buckle has deeper engravings than GEN, unbelievable!This triangle on REP buckle is a sign of TEGIMENT technology. Mine GEN buckle is not tegimented that’s why the sign is not present.
REP below GEN
As you can see there are little screws on the sides of GEN buckle. REP doesn’t have it.
Summary:
REP U1 is a nice watch. It’s solid, heavy, very well finished. It has a great rubber strap and great AR on the crystal. It has a unique style and can give a lot of fun to its owner. BUT it’s very far from 1:1 replication and definitely not a SUPER-REP. There are tells in every little part of it and the rubber seems to be the best replicated element.
The REP marked gone a long distance since 2008/2009. Today’s REPs are almost perfect. And it’s a shame that there are not any V2 and V3 version of this beautiful piece. I think that it would be very easy to improve this one – white lume on hour markers and improved bezel numbers and marks would be enough for the first step. Maybe noob maker (Mr Crème de la Crème) should put his hands on it… Then I would consider selling my GEN and stay with the REP.
But until it will happen the GEN stays with me
