Well I was going by the aesthetics of a watch. The TC and 116610 are super clones on the outside. They are genlike without opening the caseback. If you want to consider movement in a superclone discussion then sure, the TC is not a superclone.
If we're talking about aesthetics, they beat the 126610.
The 116610 has a weird rehaut but so do gens a lot of the time. It's not like Gens with off rehauts are not gens anymore. No one can look at a 116610 by VSF and say it's not a Rolex cause of the rehaut. You can look at the lugs of the 126610 and say it's not a Rolex cause of the different case shape... the comparison is worlds apart and is a false equivalency IMO.
Going to have to hard disagree here. The 126610 by VSF to the gen lacks AR, easy tell right there. The lug shape is different. The dial size is still up for debate. But AR and different case shape can't possibly be allowed in a super clone discussion. You can't possibly compare an misaligned rehaut on the 116610 which many gens have, against a different case/lug shape on the 126610 to the gen...
Again I'm sure the 126610 feels very premium and high quality. VSF is known for that. But it can't be a clone, aka an exact copy, if the case VSF is using, has a different shape, which means it isn't an exact copy... aka not a clone.
You contradict yourself a little. You have to consider movement in a superclone conversation,
You said it yourself at the end, clones AKA exact copys. A watch that’s running a totally different movement inside is not an exact copy/clone as you later mention yourself.
Although, I see it as clones will have small
Discrepancies.
I think Easy tell depends on who’s looking that’s where a lot of these points you make here end up going don’t they?
I wasn’t talking about the rehaut misalignment on 116, though gens don’t have the same type of misalignment as both the VSF models engravings.
I was talking about the shape of the Rehaut wall (I believe is more wok like) on the vsf 116 compared to straighter wall on Gen, the difference is there in the case shape anyway.
The vsf 116 xtal Ar isn’t the same as Gen either, as Roy Walker would say “it’s good but its not right” you’d still swap it.
That’s 3 for 3 across both models, if different AR and case shape cant be allowed In super clone discussion, both models have these flaws and are both discounted I guess.
Waiting for the dial size thing again would anyone call it as not gen Depends who’s eyesing it up.
An easy tell (for me) on the 116 was the hands shape, lume mismatch and date wheel, I think these were arguably more obviously off to someone Lesser informed on the models than that of the lug shape of the 126. The dial hands and DW are where the eyes spend a lot of their time, You could definitely look at those on the 116 and say it wasn’t rolex imo, especially when it was first released.
If we we’re going on things you can obviously see I think it would then put the 116 on par possible below the 126 in terms of accuracy. Until they were Improved that is.
Can these things be called out as not Gen, what’s more obviously not Gen is up for debate I think.
Lots couldn’t see what you did with 126 lugs more things were spotted with the 116 but for you it’s the better more accurate watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
