bklm1234 Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Edited March 6, 2007 by bklm1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Rep. The YACHT MASTER font is too thin... and the font in "SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER" etc. is wrong. Very nice though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklm1234 Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 here's where the picture comes from http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tre...79731&rid=0. I look at it and say: is that a gen? how come the font of "YACHT-MASTER" is so thin? Every gen pic I've seen has the bold font. This guy is posting on a gen forum. I don't know. -bm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Nothing fake about that watch. My only comment would be that it looks like the midsize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Hmmm... Not so sure it's the midsize Yachtie (168622). The watch in bklm's post has a 7mm Triplock; a 168622 has a 6mm Twinlock. Plus, the cyclops on the midsize is positioned further out towards the edge of the crystal etc. etc. The 16622 in the TZ post (and in the OP's initial posting) is a genuine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I usually always agree with Watcher. But YachtMaster midsize looks completely different. And again it uses different font. The watch in the original pic isn't a midsize version. Here's gen midsize Rolesium which is a different watch. Just look at the tiny GMT-style crown and the date position (more on the right as Ubi mentioned). There's something strange about the dial of that YM... unless Rolex has made some recent changes that we're not aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsterRider Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Rep. The YACHT MASTER font is too thin... and the font in "SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER" etc. is wrong. Very nice though. The other things that looks "off" are the end links. The edges of the polished centers look too rounded to me. That is one thing that always gives away a rep to me. Genuine Rolex SEL's have very defined center sections. This one looks rounded. It would help to have a better pic, but based on this one rep is my call... SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elprimerozen Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 REP! Or ROLEX made some mods... GEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Doh Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 REP! Or ROLEX made some mods... GEN The round markers are broader and flatter on the rep too. On my rep they are exactly like the gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arminvanbuuren Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 REP! Or ROLEX made some mods... GEN hmm i dont get it.. they both look very very similar to me.. even the font is the same.. just the "yachtmaster" part on the rep is a lil bit thinner.. but without a gen next to it.. i doubt anyone could pick that up.. is there somehting im missing here? :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest porsche356a Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Its a Gen. There are far fewer of the lighter "yachtmaSter" dials, but they are out there. Again, much like the S in submariner and swiss and swiss made, different dial vendors produce different results. However, the crown is the right size, the marker spacing is perfect, and the hour indices are the right width. How about this one for comparo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest porsche356a Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Nonetheless, goes to show how incredibly close to the real thing the REP is of the 16622. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.