Picked up a gen 116710 last week. Finally gotten around to take pics and do a comparison.
The gen has the blue masking tape on the cushion or always on the left/top.
Gen like quality of the rep will be judged from 1-10 (10 being like gen). Notice that this rating CHANGES based on the pictures being compared since the differences may or may not be spotted at another set of comparison shots.
The gen used in the comparison is a random serial number model.
The rep used is from Timesshop (Mark). It is from the noob factory. This particular one has the A2836 movement. The rep is also among the first that I purchased since joining RWI
.
Larger size pictures available in album
The comparison is broken down into components of the watch.
Case/Bezel:
1. Front - Overall:
2. Bezel Edge (close up):
You can see the gen has slightly polished teeth while the rep is simply raw (drilled) finish. When you run your fingers over the teeth, the rep is slightly smooth whereas the gen is pointy.
3. Bezel Engraving (close up):
Here you can see the differences not only in depth and width of the engraving but also the style of font (notice the 1 has a curved top on the gen and the 8 is slightly more squared). The picture does not show this, but the color is slightly different on the gen; since the gen's numbers are colored with platinum its slightly gray (especially on the triangle).
4. Side:
Side: 8 - Overall same dimension but the ends are not as sharp, the gen is quite pointy
Crown: 8 - Very good overall, dimension appears to be the same, again sharper teeth on the gen.
Front Elements/Dial:
5. Crystal and Bezel (6 inches from watch):
Cyclops: 5 Obviously no AR on the rep, also the rep seems to magnify too much... there's a lot more distortion in the magnification on the rep.
Rehaut engraving: 8.5 - Sharper and deeper on the gen, of course its aligned perfectly on the gen, reps may have a good alignment of rehaut
Crystal: 9 - The crystal on the gen has a slightly polished edge giving it a more defined look. Notice that the gen has more spacing between the crystal and the inner edge of the bezel. The laser etched logo on the rep is too big; you can barely see it with the naked eye on the gen. The logo is drawn by dots on the gen rather than straight lines on the rep.
6. Dial and Hands
Printing: 8 - The "GMT - MASTER II" printing on the rep is slightly darker and spacing is a bit off from gen, the print also looks 3d on the gen rather than flat on the rep. Overall font size and color (on the white wording) is quite good. The hole in the coronet is noticeably bigger in the rep.
Indexes: 8 - quite good from this view, aside from having slightly thicker surrounds the lume is not as applied as evenly as the gen. you can also see the gen has a much more polished look, the rep has more sharper corners at 6 and 9; the triangle index is the biggest difference between the watches here (due to the application of the lume)
Hour Hand: 7.5 - appears to have the same length as gen, but is slightly fatter. the triangle is also larger on the rep; edges are not as clean)
Minute Hand: 8.5 - appears to have the same length as gen, but is slightly fatter than gen. Again, edges are not as clean as gen
Second Hand: 9 - the hands on the rep is a bit thicker than the gen; especially towards the outside edge. The gen hands has a slightly tapered appearance
GMT Hand: 8 - color is quite close in the rep, but the paint/print is completely different than gen. on the gen you can see the paint is thick and is slightly raised, the rep appears flat; triangle is almost identical; ever so slightly thicker around the lume for the rep. This rep has the ICHS but that is hardly ever noticeable; I bet 8/10 gen owners would not know if the GMT hand sits above or below the hour hand...
7. Cyclops and Date wheel
Cyclops: 5 - obviously no AR on the rep, but this can be modded. The magnification is higher on the rep. You can also notice more distortion in the magnification. The gen's magnified date still retains the rectangular appearance.
Date Wheel: 6 - The date wheel on the rep is completely different specially the number 1. On the gen, the number 1 is more of a letter "I". You can also see 2 and 3s have tails on the gen. Other numbers are also different but 1 2 and 3 are most noticeable.
Bracelet/Clasp:
8. Brushing and PCL: 9 (7.5 before custom brushing) - I polished and brushed the rep links myself. Originally the rep's brushing is much thicker than the gen. The thicker brushing gave the bracelet a brighter appearance. Polish is very similar on both models.
7. Flexibility: 6.5 - The rep's bracelet feels quite cheap when held, it rattles more than the gen. The rep bracelet has more lateral movement than gen. The gen links are held on much more tightly.
9. Clasp: 5 - This is the biggest flaw of the rep. The clasp edges are very poor compared to the gen. The coronet on the clasp has a more web like appearance on the rep. Each of the spokes on the gen's crown has more clearly defined spaces.
The securing cap is also poorly defined on the rep; it is slightly rounded on the inside edge.
The securing cap also does not sit flush with the rest of the clasp.
10. Clasp Adjustments/Inside: 7 - Biggest difference is the engraving inside the clasp. The rep's engraving is thin. I have also sharpied my rep, but still does not have the same appearance in color as the gen. The inside of the gen clasp is sand blasted, the rep has a smoother flat finish.
The fine adjustment is there, but its much harder to adjust on the rep. I can easily move the fine adjustment on the gen. The easy link works just like gen, but does not snap in as hard. The rep also seems to scratch the PCL under the clasp more easily than the gen.
Backside/SEL Fitment
11. SEL: 5 - It just looks bad on the rep, but in reality the fitment is quite secure. Although, I did modify the fitment and spring bars on the rep. The SEL also does not sit flush with the case on the rep.
12. Case Corners: 8 - This difference is rarely pointed out. On the gen the
corners are pointy and sharp. The rep has more rounded corners, probably from polishing the case.
13. Case Back: 8.5 - Sharper teeth on the gen, although the rep may be sharper when new. The brushed part of the case back is smaller on the gen.
14. Backside of Crown Guard: 8 - The gen wraps the crown more than the rep, also much straighter edges than the rep. Not noticeable when worn.
Feel in Hand
15. Weight: 9.5 - The rep feels about the pretty much the same as the gen.
16. Feel: 8 - The bracelet and clasp brings this down. Again the entire bracelet is nosier and feels flimsier. Perhaps tightening the permanent links would improve the bracelet feel.
Feel on Wrist
17. Comfort: 9 - Rep is just as comfortable to wear. Sets and sizes the same way as the gen. Oiling the bracelet on both models benefit contributes to the comfort as well.
18. Feel: 9 - Feels the same in weight and proportion. Again the bracelet rattles with a more canny sound than the gen.
Movement Adjustments
The adjustments are shown below. I actually prefer the adjustment settings of the rep than the gen. It's easier to set the date and times on the rep.
It has been noted that with A2836 reps, the GMT hand experiences issues. I have seen the GMT hand on my watch lag or stop moving from time to time (usually happens after infrequent use). I have not experience it stopping while being worn.
Gen:
Unscrewed: winding (CW)
First notch: +/- hour hand (1 hour increment) +/- Date (hour hand needs to go around 24 times) (CW/CCW)
Second notch: +/- Hour, GMT and minute hands (CW/CCW)
Rep:
Unscrewed: winding (CW)
First notch: +date (CW) +GMT hand (1 hour increment) (CCW)
Second notch: +/- main hour and minute (CCW/CW)
Suggested Improvements
Listed in order of importance:
Overall, the noob GMT rep is quite good. It was quite hard to tell which was the gen on certain pictures. The dial is very good on the rep as well as the case dimension and looks. The biggest downfall of the rep is the bracelet and clasp. However the AR cyclops would be a great modification as this can be a telltale sign of a rep.
The gen has the blue masking tape on the cushion or always on the left/top.
Gen like quality of the rep will be judged from 1-10 (10 being like gen). Notice that this rating CHANGES based on the pictures being compared since the differences may or may not be spotted at another set of comparison shots.
The gen used in the comparison is a random serial number model.
The rep used is from Timesshop (Mark). It is from the noob factory. This particular one has the A2836 movement. The rep is also among the first that I purchased since joining RWI
. Larger size pictures available in album
The comparison is broken down into components of the watch.
- Case/Bezel
- Front Elements/Dial
- Bracelet/Clasp
- Backside/SEL Fitment
- Feel in Hand
- Feel on Wrist
- Movement Adjustments
- Suggested Improvements
Case/Bezel:
1. Front - Overall:
- Dial: 9 - Dial maker surroundings being thicker and uneven lume
- Hands: 8 - all hands are noticeably skinner on the gen; makes it appear longer but actually same lengths
- Bezel: 8.5 - Gen's engraving is a bit deeper and the color is slightly silver. Rep and gen has 24 clicks but the gen adjustments are consistent through-out. Gen is also quieter when adjusting. My rep had a 1/3 minute of free play.
- SEL: 8 (the gen SELs sit more flush with the case).
- Crown Guard: 7.5 (noticeably rounder on the rep, sharp straight edges on the gen)
2. Bezel Edge (close up):
You can see the gen has slightly polished teeth while the rep is simply raw (drilled) finish. When you run your fingers over the teeth, the rep is slightly smooth whereas the gen is pointy.
3. Bezel Engraving (close up):
Here you can see the differences not only in depth and width of the engraving but also the style of font (notice the 1 has a curved top on the gen and the 8 is slightly more squared). The picture does not show this, but the color is slightly different on the gen; since the gen's numbers are colored with platinum its slightly gray (especially on the triangle).
4. Side:
Side: 8 - Overall same dimension but the ends are not as sharp, the gen is quite pointy
Crown: 8 - Very good overall, dimension appears to be the same, again sharper teeth on the gen.
Front Elements/Dial:
5. Crystal and Bezel (6 inches from watch):
Cyclops: 5 Obviously no AR on the rep, also the rep seems to magnify too much... there's a lot more distortion in the magnification on the rep.
Rehaut engraving: 8.5 - Sharper and deeper on the gen, of course its aligned perfectly on the gen, reps may have a good alignment of rehaut
Crystal: 9 - The crystal on the gen has a slightly polished edge giving it a more defined look. Notice that the gen has more spacing between the crystal and the inner edge of the bezel. The laser etched logo on the rep is too big; you can barely see it with the naked eye on the gen. The logo is drawn by dots on the gen rather than straight lines on the rep.
6. Dial and Hands
Printing: 8 - The "GMT - MASTER II" printing on the rep is slightly darker and spacing is a bit off from gen, the print also looks 3d on the gen rather than flat on the rep. Overall font size and color (on the white wording) is quite good. The hole in the coronet is noticeably bigger in the rep.
Indexes: 8 - quite good from this view, aside from having slightly thicker surrounds the lume is not as applied as evenly as the gen. you can also see the gen has a much more polished look, the rep has more sharper corners at 6 and 9; the triangle index is the biggest difference between the watches here (due to the application of the lume)
Hour Hand: 7.5 - appears to have the same length as gen, but is slightly fatter. the triangle is also larger on the rep; edges are not as clean)
Minute Hand: 8.5 - appears to have the same length as gen, but is slightly fatter than gen. Again, edges are not as clean as gen
Second Hand: 9 - the hands on the rep is a bit thicker than the gen; especially towards the outside edge. The gen hands has a slightly tapered appearance
GMT Hand: 8 - color is quite close in the rep, but the paint/print is completely different than gen. on the gen you can see the paint is thick and is slightly raised, the rep appears flat; triangle is almost identical; ever so slightly thicker around the lume for the rep. This rep has the ICHS but that is hardly ever noticeable; I bet 8/10 gen owners would not know if the GMT hand sits above or below the hour hand...
7. Cyclops and Date wheel
Cyclops: 5 - obviously no AR on the rep, but this can be modded. The magnification is higher on the rep. You can also notice more distortion in the magnification. The gen's magnified date still retains the rectangular appearance.
Date Wheel: 6 - The date wheel on the rep is completely different specially the number 1. On the gen, the number 1 is more of a letter "I". You can also see 2 and 3s have tails on the gen. Other numbers are also different but 1 2 and 3 are most noticeable.
Bracelet/Clasp:
8. Brushing and PCL: 9 (7.5 before custom brushing) - I polished and brushed the rep links myself. Originally the rep's brushing is much thicker than the gen. The thicker brushing gave the bracelet a brighter appearance. Polish is very similar on both models.
7. Flexibility: 6.5 - The rep's bracelet feels quite cheap when held, it rattles more than the gen. The rep bracelet has more lateral movement than gen. The gen links are held on much more tightly.
9. Clasp: 5 - This is the biggest flaw of the rep. The clasp edges are very poor compared to the gen. The coronet on the clasp has a more web like appearance on the rep. Each of the spokes on the gen's crown has more clearly defined spaces.
The securing cap is also poorly defined on the rep; it is slightly rounded on the inside edge.
The securing cap also does not sit flush with the rest of the clasp.
10. Clasp Adjustments/Inside: 7 - Biggest difference is the engraving inside the clasp. The rep's engraving is thin. I have also sharpied my rep, but still does not have the same appearance in color as the gen. The inside of the gen clasp is sand blasted, the rep has a smoother flat finish.
The fine adjustment is there, but its much harder to adjust on the rep. I can easily move the fine adjustment on the gen. The easy link works just like gen, but does not snap in as hard. The rep also seems to scratch the PCL under the clasp more easily than the gen.
Backside/SEL Fitment
11. SEL: 5 - It just looks bad on the rep, but in reality the fitment is quite secure. Although, I did modify the fitment and spring bars on the rep. The SEL also does not sit flush with the case on the rep.
12. Case Corners: 8 - This difference is rarely pointed out. On the gen the
corners are pointy and sharp. The rep has more rounded corners, probably from polishing the case.
13. Case Back: 8.5 - Sharper teeth on the gen, although the rep may be sharper when new. The brushed part of the case back is smaller on the gen.
14. Backside of Crown Guard: 8 - The gen wraps the crown more than the rep, also much straighter edges than the rep. Not noticeable when worn.
Feel in Hand
15. Weight: 9.5 - The rep feels about the pretty much the same as the gen.
16. Feel: 8 - The bracelet and clasp brings this down. Again the entire bracelet is nosier and feels flimsier. Perhaps tightening the permanent links would improve the bracelet feel.
Feel on Wrist
17. Comfort: 9 - Rep is just as comfortable to wear. Sets and sizes the same way as the gen. Oiling the bracelet on both models benefit contributes to the comfort as well.
18. Feel: 9 - Feels the same in weight and proportion. Again the bracelet rattles with a more canny sound than the gen.
Movement Adjustments
The adjustments are shown below. I actually prefer the adjustment settings of the rep than the gen
. It's easier to set the date and times on the rep.It has been noted that with A2836 reps, the GMT hand experiences issues. I have seen the GMT hand on my watch lag or stop moving from time to time (usually happens after infrequent use). I have not experience it stopping while being worn.
Gen:
Unscrewed: winding (CW)
First notch: +/- hour hand (1 hour increment) +/- Date (hour hand needs to go around 24 times) (CW/CCW)
Second notch: +/- Hour, GMT and minute hands (CW/CCW)
Rep:
Unscrewed: winding (CW)
First notch: +date (CW) +GMT hand (1 hour increment) (CCW)
Second notch: +/- main hour and minute (CCW/CW)
Suggested Improvements
Listed in order of importance:
- Clasp - needs much more definition in the coronet and securing cap
- Bracelet Links - needs to be tighten to lessen lateral movement
- AR Cyclops - very obvious difference from afar
- Crystal Beveled Edge/Spacing - very easy to spot at wrist distance, the gen crystal seems to shine around the edges
- Date Wheel - noticeable when up close; especially number "1"
- Bezel Engraving - more noticeable during side viewing, slightly different color on rep
- Crown Guard - quite good at this point, but can be straighter, most of the definition of the CG is lost due to heavy polishing...
- Bezel Edge - very noticeable difference when touched... hard to tell from afar; however the grooves between the teeth are slightly polished on the gen
- Brushing of the Bracelet - the brushing from the factory is thicker than the gen; it actually gave the bracelet a brighter look than gen. Easy to fix with some scotch bright!
Overall, the noob GMT rep is quite good. It was quite hard to tell which was the gen on certain pictures. The dial is very good on the rep as well as the case dimension and looks. The biggest downfall of the rep is the bracelet and clasp. However the AR cyclops would be a great modification as this can be a telltale sign of a rep.
