involt

Maybe we're all speaking of different aspects of the same concept, and at the very end we're saying the same thing. Robbie says that "a Chinese street vendor type merchant has ever told the truth about anything", and this is undoubtely true, but we don't deal with Chinese vendors. We deal with exponents of the Western World. THEY deal with Chinese vendors. They intentionally obscure the sources of the products in order to keep on holding an economic power. They merge in a "Cartel" that allows them any price increasing at no risk. They are the interface between us and the Chinese street vendors. The Chinese street vendor dares to lie in his teeth because the street selling is a sort of "grab-and-go"; most likely, you'll never see the vendor again. Not so for our beloved "trusted dealers"; they are included in a list of trusted person, as opposite to "scam sites". But the distribution of the risk is widely unbalanced. If everything runs smoothly, there is a 400 percent profit for the seller; when something goes wrong, the buyer loses anything. What kind of trustworthiness would this be? On the other hand, I realize that the vendor takes a risk; but we should restore a balance. In this respect, I'm with Vmena. RobbieG says: I'll also bet that a great % of them don't even know if the movements are real or fake - or gold. They just repeat what the factory (read: Chinese Street Merchant) tells them. and in my opinion this is the point: the good faith. If the seller knows nothing about the product he has been someway scammed too; but even if he has been scammed he will do something in order to keep faith with the buyer. IMHO, this is the only valid parameter you can count on. And this is the reason why I don't want to specifically speak about WM9: I'm still believing in his good faith. But currently I'm losing more than 800$

The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago. It was due to some technical issue, as rofwaffle says, but the problem was on RG... I think it will spontaneously revert, don't worry.

There is a point I'd like to clarify here. As far I'm concerned at least, the current discussion regards the general rules that apply to the rep world rather than the WM9 behaviour. I would like to emphasize that my findings about the gold had been strictly confined to the WM9 forum, in context of a hidden thread; raising a specific question about the WM9 behaviour wasn't my intention, for the moment at least. Fakemaster is right when says that the only posts of styler concern the WM9 matter. My guess is that styler on one hand was caught up because he wanted to purchase a watch, becoming disappointed by my findings; on the other hand, he wanted to be a little bit in the limelight (and this is someway understandable), being the gold issue an argument "strong" enough to achieve such a result. After all, the thread has reached a total of more than 1200 views. However, I'm satisfied he meant no harm. Anyway, we could take the opportunity, given by this thread, to debate a bit more deeply the subject concerning the reliability of the dealers. Fakemaster started a thread where he set out some criteria that would allow us to determine if a given dealer is trustworthy or he is not. Theoretically, the criteria seem to be rigorous enough; practically, there is room for doubt. what does exactly mean: Shipped a product that was inferior or not as described or Grossly overcharged for products or Behaves in a manner which is not considered ethical If someone claims that his product is in solid gold whereas it is not, or he claims that the product is equipped with a genuine ETA movement when it actually contains a clone at best, is he providing a truthful description? Is he going to ship a product that isn't inferior? If he asks for a given price, and the item isn't consistent with the description but it's inferior, is he overcharging for the product? And, above all, who can establish if such a behaviour is ethical? What does exactly mean "is not considered"? By who? Who should hold the balance? The community? How does it work? When I receive the inconsistent item I have to publish the picture, and if the community says "crappy" I can label the seller as a scammer, whereas if someone says "after all, not bad" I have to happily keep my lemon? When a seller says that some parts are in solid gold whereas they aren't, are he behaving ethically? Is its behaviour ethical when the price, in someone opinion (if possible, a friend of the seller) is "too low", becoming unethical when the price increases? The fakemaster initiative is undoubtely praiseworthy, and I don't want to flame anyone here, but we should realize that we should use more precise parameters; otherwise, any criterion becomes useless.

Vmena and RobbieG, thanks for your replies. In my opinion, the question should be considered from two different points of view; eventually they will merge. The one is related to the "dark side" of the matter. The replica world is invested with an aura of mystery. Only few of us (not many, at least) really know where are exactly located the factories, which materials are used, how much actually cost a replica watch, how the projects are realized, where the fake ETA movements are crafted, which expertise the makers have...and this isn't surprising, as everything concerning the replicas is someway illegal. Hence you may want to investigate by yourself if you need answers; you can't simply ask The other has to do with the growing request of such a product. The market is booming: many people buy a rep, some people collect them. So the market must follow the market rules. The one merges with the other when you focus on the fact that "illegal" simply means that it isn't in accordance with the law. It doesn't mean "immoral", "unjust", "unfair" in any way, because nothing can assure us of the morality, the justness or the fairness of a given law. Hence, the rep market should follow the same market rules as for the legal situations, the only difference dwelling in the secrecy. The seller should be trusted and fair in every respect, all the more so because the customer has no legal rights The customer hasn't any organization super partes he can appeal to, so any transaction has to be clean. Any advertisement has to be truthful. The buyer should have been given the chance to choose the seller on a trustworthiness basis. Because he hasn't any alternative. In the rep world we are referring to such sellers calling them "trusted dealers". Well, I asked (POV no. 2), then I checked the truthfulness of the answer (POV no.1) Now someone would intend to affirm that the trustworthiness dwells in the price. The bracelet could be in in solid gold, but it isn't because the price is too low. 573$ would allow to craft a solid gold bracelet, but this doesn't happen because the price is low; so, either asking or checking is dumb: the bracelet is obviously in brass. When WM9 sold the TT Sub at $ 778.99 (practically, 780 USD), was the bracelet in solid gold? And, if so, did the bracelet magically turn into brass when the price was lowered? Or is even 780 USD a low price? What is the boundary that turns "hahaha" in "Solid gold? Amazing!"? 1000 USD? 1500 USD? Would this mean that 1499 USD is "hahaha", whereas 1500 USD is "Amazing!"? And this goes for the movements too, or whatever Anyway, the gold question isn't the only issue with WM9. But I wouldn't talk about it. Not now, at least

I must be a really stupid man, and not clever as lots of people are, because I can't understand some basic concepts that most of you guys are quite clear about. You know well the exact composition of the watch that WM9 (or anybody else, for that matter) sells, regardless of his statements, whereas I need to test the item in order to establish as things are. And I couldn't realize yet if it's lack of intelligence or of some parapsychological talent for my part. You know well that when WM9 writes on his website "18K White gold 200 micron plated on 316L stainless steel watchcase" (ROLEX DATEJUST 16234) he's telling the truth whereas when he replies "The gold part on the 2 tone Submariner 16613 is made of real 18k yellow gold, not wrapped or plated" to a straight question he's lying; I'm in need of a check. You know well that a watch that costs about 600$, even if similar to a 300$ one, cannot have solid gold parts. And you know this with no need of any calculation, any rationale, only due to some sort of inborn knowledge, whereas I'm compelled to calculate weights and price (as this thread was trigged off by some observation I posted on the WM9 forum, it would be a good rule reading before posting, as it isn't something to be ashamed of, or a masculinity diminution - I'm conscious that my English is poor, but the Google translator doesn't run into particular difficulties when translate my posts, so I'm pretty sure that understanding what I say is as a piece of cake for you). But all the more amazing is the fact that at very end it turns out that it's ridiculous ("...haha"; not "it isn't true in the specific case", but "yeah right, solid gold for this price, haha"), my demonstration notwithstanding. You know all this very well, with no need of clues. On the other hand, if someone explicitly declares that the golden parts aren't in solid, real, gold, this kills the Sub TT production (or, better, its distribution). The simply action of saying what everybody already knew kills the Submariner; hence, the selling of the watch is entirely based upon the hypocrisy. When I was a child, someone taught me that hypocrisy is a bad quality, not a good one. But for you it seems to be a merit. Or maybe have I misunderstood the teaching due to my stupidity? Because it seems that you, clever guys, think of saying something and doing the opposite as normality. If someone claims to sell an Aston Martin, then send me a lemon I think I've been cheated. You find it normal, because the price was too low for an Aston Martin. Maybe you even happily sit on the lemon trying to drive it. No matter what the seller says, you watch the price and know well what you'll get. You're very clever and I'm a fool. Too much brains difference. I have to (dumbly) measure, weigh, check, verify in order to obtain half a knowledge that you'll have always had from birth. And, anyway, I won't ever get the hypocrisy, that is a fundamental part of the whole line of reasoning. But I'm not the only stupid in the world. styler is another stupid, that tries to save the world. But maybe saving the world wasn't exactly his intention; I guess that he only wanted to better it a bit, making it less crappy. Obviously, he's wrong; we all deserve to live in this crappy world. Don't you presume to try to change it, please. Happy new year

Let's put it like this: our errors are the best teachers we may hope for; unfortunately, sometimes they can be greedy for money. Learn from your error, thinking that that sum has been the price paid for an invaluable lesson. Take the watch you'll get; it's better than the risk of losing everything. And console yourself: as for me, it went worse

No, they don't. Read this: http://www.repgeek.com/showthread.php?t=12113

Why do you want to replace the crown? The crown of the SSD is correct, very close to a gen one. Read the review on RG: http://www.repgeek.com/showthread.php?t=6534

Obviously it doesn't have it. I meant that the the differences between rehauts are less than 0.5 mm whereas the misalignment of the RRR on the GMTIIc rep (when compared to a gen) is more than 2 mm; besides, on the GMTIIc you have a reference mark (the hour marker). So in my humble opinion the inaccuracy of the SSD rehaut is negligible

If you buy an insert from WM, it will sit below the bezel lip with no need of modification. About the rehaut... This: is the result of a image processing of picture taken from this board, comparing the gen with the rep; it's resized so that the actual size on my screen (17", 1162x864 res) is comparable to the real one. Can you notice such a lot of difference? The size of the misalignment of the RRR on the GMT II Ceramic is ten times as great; and the GMT II is considered a "super-rep"

I employ vaseline. It's colourless, odourless, viscous and easy to remove from the external surfaces. It's perfect for the job if you don't mind the ironical smiles of the druggist...

...so, this could be the Rolex "secret" ...

The cyclops and the crystal can be considered, from an "optical" point of view, as a single unit only if the cement has the same refractive index as the glass; otherwise, the rays of light come across two interfaces, possible causes of reflections: the glass-cement interface , and the cement-glass interface . I don't know about the refractive index of the sapphire glue; in the optical field (telescopes, binoculars...) a special resin is used in order to cement the single elements of an objective.

the hands need to be removed and reinstalled in the proper position. A watchsmith will do it for you

I am by no means an expert in this field, but for an effective AR coating all the interfaces must be coated. This is the way all the professional (e.g. refractors telescopes, high-end binoculars, etc.) optical equipments are coated. The interface between different media (air-glass in this case) is the origin of an optical impedance mismatching. The AR coating acts as an impedance adapter. Hence, for an acceptable effect, the underside of the crystal and the upper surface of the cyclope have to be treated; beside, the cyclope should be cemented to the crystal by means some sort of medium that eliminates the double interface between the cyclope and the crystal (for instance, Canada balsam is used for the microscope slides) acting as an impedance adapter. In this case the result would be similar to that can be seen on a gen. But I have no idea about what kind of cement could be used in order to achieve such an effect. .

Better rehaut engraving, not misaligned as for the SS version. So it seems from the pics, at least.

jake48, first of all, thanks for your (widely undeserved ) compliments about my English. The matter isn't such plain as it appears at first sight. If you read thoroughly the hidden thread posted by styler, you'll realize that I've been involved against my will. The only information I provided at first was concerning the golden parts, in generic terms: Watchman, I have to say you're wrong. The golden parts aren't plated or gold coloured; they really are in solid metal. The bad news is that the metal isn't gold. It's an alloy containing copper, whose specific gravity lies between 8 and 9 (sort of brass, bronze, gun-metal...). Sorry guys Then I got carried away by the stupid posts of 19framps. There are several issues about WM9, not only the gold question. The only thing I can tell you for the time being is that either George is a scammer or he has been scammed. In any case, I've been scammed. I don't pontificate if I don't know the course of facts, because it's my way. And I agree with you: character is infinitely more valuable than a watch. But in the social relations field, such a concept must be valid for both sides. If I consider your character whereas you consider my money, this would mean that I, as a person, am worth as much as a watch (or a few hundred of dollars). Not exactly a gratifying outcome; but, above all, an unjust yardstick. In my opinion, styler honestly believed to do the right thing. And maybe it could be the right thing, but not this way, not now. But I want to underline that I haven't any problem at all with him. Maybe he's a bit rash... Should George be unfair, would you really prefer to defend him whole-heartedly, and against the damaged members of the community? Please, ask yourself. And if you can't find an answer, wait and think it over. As I'm waiting...

The movement is assembled on a metal ring that is too large, so it's held by three washers screwed on the ring. A washer would overlap a movement screw, so it was removed and its housing was widened. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong

It's an ETA 2892. Here: http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi...amp;0&2uswk you'll find features and (small) pictures of several movements, ETA included. Unfortunately, the links @Boley are broken

Guys, since all the original posts (on the WM9 forum, as well as on the Italian section of RG) are mine, I'm entitled (maybe I'm the only entitled) to reply, I guess. I'm not a native English speaker, so it's likely you'll find here several gross mistakes, but I'm pretty sure you'll understand anyway First of all, I'll answer the question: why wasn't it posted on the English forum (or on RWG, or RWI for that matter)? There are two main reasons. The first is: that wasn't the time. Or maybe I should have said: @styler: styler, it wasn't the time; publicizing the hidden posts is inappropriate at the moment. I don't know who exactly are you, but I'm pretty sure you're in good faith, you're thinking of doing the community a favour. However, as anyone can desume by reading the posts, I don't consider George a scammer so far, and waiting for further developments was my intention (in the end of the post #33). I didn't want to damage George or his business; not before having some proof about his will of intentionally damaging me. And as I'm the original starter of the threads (in the present terms, at least), I wished my will were respected. Anyway, at this point the damage is done... The second concerns the attitude and the behaviour of some people. This is tacitly stated in context of some sentences in several posts, and explicitly declared in a post on the Italian section of RG (#10 of the same thread). Italian is a little-known and though language, besides, my writing style is unsuitable for an automatic translater; but the Google translation seems to be fairly understandable. However, this can be deduced (with no need of translation) from the reading of the various posts someway related to this topic. Read this: http://replica-watch.info/forum/viewtopic....f=5&t=46606 then read the replies to my post on the Italian section of RG The comparison may result to be very enlightening. And going on with this respects... please, note the attitude of 19framps on the hidden forums. Please read his post and my reply, noting that his post (the second-last) was edited after my reply. Good manners cannot be created by magic simply by editing a post; they only can come from family and from distinction. BTW this is the reason why I currently hold George in esteem, regardless the gold issue. Another example can be found in the jake48 replies; I think he should reconsider his behaviour towards styler BTW, among other things, jake48 wrote: But... what should I have searched? Please, show me the result of any test published on this or others boards. I never read a substantiated assertion; only allegations. a certain eddie claimed he had tested a bracelet link: http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showto...st&p=114947 by melting down it. What the heck should this demonstrate? Besides that, is there something else I should find? On this board or other ones? In context of my posts you can read calculations, get links, view pictures. Anyone with half a brain can understand the matter. But less than an half isn't enough, sorry. Done, jake48. On July, 15th, 2008. And this is the reply, cut and pasted from my mailbox, as I never deleted the mail: The gold part on the 2 tone Submariner 16613 is made of real 18k yellow gold, not wrapped or plated. As you can easily realize, this was happening long before the "hidden thread" development. Obviously I didn't ask about the Lady Datejust. Thanks for your good offices, but an answer in short isn't enough for me. It means nothing at all. Maybe it's more than enough for most people, but not for me. And this is, ultimately, the second reason why I didn't post the issue on the English forum. And about the watches source, or better, the watches provenance, I'll say nothing here and now. Suffice it to say that I spent 1282$ and, at the moment, all that I have is a TT Sub and a jubilee bracelet made of steel and copper. Hoping that this situation will work out for the best, as I still trust in George somehow. If you search my posts (the infamous search button comes back), you'll find several indirect clues about the watches provenience. But this time you'll need a whole brain. This is the only thing we all are in need of, not facetiousness about black helicopters, that can't demonstrate anything. precisely To sum up, as many people talked for the sake of talking but not moving a finger for the sake of the truth, please suspend any posting; we'll resume it at the proper time. Thanks for understanding Regards

And it can't. Not easily, at least. It can't be scratched bt a nail, or by a sharp point applying a mild pressure (that would scratch an aluminium insert, however). So, don't worry

If you read some definition of "ceramic" (even the Wikipedia article will do), you'll realize that "ceramic" isn't a single compound, but a family of materials. I have no doubt that the material of the rep insert is different from the gen insert; but this doesn't mean that the rep bezel insert isn't "ceramic" IMHO, the question makes little sense

The numbers of the gen insert are filled with platinum powder (it's YG powder for the TT and solid gold inserts). The rep numbers are somewhat "painted". That makes a big difference IMHO

I don't know if it's real ceramic, or it isn't, but I can tell you two things: 1) the insert can't be scratched by a sharp point (of a needle or pin) applying a mild pressure (I didn't dare to apply a strong one ) 2) a genuine replacement insert costs about 800$, but the Divergraph Orange Professional (by Dievas) has a ceramic bezel insert and costs 350$ (the whole watch, not the insert). So the high price of the gen Rolex insert doesn't have any justification in terms of manufacturing, but it's only due to the Rolex style So, I don't worry overmuch

I'm a noob too, but I agree. Wrong CG, bad bezel insert, solid midlinks, no warranty card, no serial reported in context of the description, fake papers...