involt

http://www.vikbobil.se/bezel.html

A reputable dealer told me on yesterday, verbatim: "This item will not be upgraded for at least another 6 months i think"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=290275454775 At least, the vendor doesn't explicitly declare that it's genuine

The same thing happened to my brother's Explorer II, but with no previous shock. He hadn't worn the watch for two months too, and neither the crown, not the tube (or the O-ring) seemed to be damaged. I forced the crown after having wrapped a soft cloth around it; then I lubricated the tube, and the problem was solved. The only reasonable assumption I can put forward is a manifestation of the thermal expansion of the crown.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that Rolex would arrogate the right to destroy a property that was left it in charge, giving back the scraps (considering that they have been phographed)? This puzzles me...

As regards a "generic" feedback, PT is a trusted dealer; sometimes he/she seems to be a little indolent, but undoubtedly reliable and a kind person. I don't know about the "specific" item; but you can ask him/her. He/she has always been honest with me

MG, thanks for your suggestion. The site (of which I didn't know the existence) is really interesting, and I'll likely apply to them for an eventual reluming. It might be considered for a possibly reluming of a (good) DeepSea too. However I was referring to a reluming done by myself, that is beyond my technical capabilities. Thanks again Involt

Shawn, we all learn discussing and comparing notes. Thanks again. Kind regards. involt

Shawn, thanks for the clarification. As far as I know, "super luminova" is a class of fluorescent pigments developed by RC TRITEC and Nemoto Ltd. They can be spreaded on some parts in order to make them photoluminescent. Rolex uses them on the hour markers, on the hands and on the pearl. The pearl itself can be made of plastic (the cheaper ones) or other materials. Watchmaterial sells pearls made of sapphire, as was reported on the website (http://www.watchmaterial.com/viewitem.asp?idProduct=1801), filled with pigments that aren't Super-Luminova. The gen pearls are made of sapphire filled with SuperLuminova. I was referring to the pearl itself, not to the pigments: I meant that tha material of the pearl is the same as the gen one; not so for the pigments. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards

The lume of the pearl is very good; besides, the peal is made of sapphire as for gen; great improvement for the watch IMHO. Regarding the relume, is absolutely out of my reach Cheers

I bought the bezel insert from Watchmaterial. The reference is 315-16660-1. It perfectly fitted in below the lip of the bezel, with no need of glueing or modding.

Maybe a subjective impression? I'm not an expert by all means, but I think that it's impossible. The dial is fixed (glued?) to the movement, and the movement should be forced in the correct position (with regard to a 3-9 axis) by the stem. It could only pivot on that axis (the stem). On the other hand, the hands are directly connected to the movement; if the dial was unglued, the hands would scrape the dial. The experts will correct me if I am wrong.

No, Flex, sorry; I'm not Alex

The explanations are in Italian, but the videos aren't: "http://orologi-rolex.shop.it/video.html"

It looks like the case shape is wrong (too large in comparison with the bezel?). The bezel insert isn't ceramic. The hour markers are horrible (the external ring is conical in order to imitate the big dial hour markers). The result isn't great IMHO.

Frank, I don't know why you should buy from WM; maybe you shouldn't. I can only explain why I bought from WM9; I could see valid arguments where you don't see any reason. I think that (quality) reps aren't bad at all. A replica equipped with a Swiss ETA is, in my humble opinion, an excellent watch, although poorly assembled. A gen SeaDweller 4000 costs as much as 20 SSD, but it isn't worth as much as 20 SSD. So, more expensive doesn't mean better; at most, much more expensive could mean slightly better I wished a two-tone watch, a sturdy, quality, durable watch. This left out the reps with plated or wrapped golden parts. George told me that the WM9 golden parts were in solid gold, so I bought the TT Sub. I thought that a Swiss ETA, beautifully crafted, watch with parts in solid gold was worth the price. Some problems have arisen, and this is the reason why I posted here my experience; those who intended to buy from WM9 got additional information. But at the time being, all things considered, I'm happy with my TT; for the future, time will tell. Cheers Vix

In my opinion George is a kind and polite person, and I'm absolutely sure that he definitely is not a scammer. But I have the impression he sometimes doesn't exactly know every detail about the items that he himself sells.

FYI: Following George's instructions, I wore my TT Sub for about a week; then I put it in its box. After having read a post on the WM9 forum ("Brown stains on my sub two tone bracelet"), I opened the box, and this is what I saw looking at the inner part of the bracelet: I couldn't say that the midlinks were "tarnished"; they mainly seemed "wore out"; and the brown stains couldn't be removed wiping them. So I polished the stained area, then I re-brushed it. This is the result: The polished area remain golden, but there is an imperceptible edge (indicated by the arrows) between the stained area and the rest of the midlink. I don't know what it exactly means; I hope it can be a useful piece of information somehow.

First of all, I'm not a native English speaker; I hope you'll forgive my incorrect syntax as well my improper colloquialism. I'm a big fan of the two tone watches; I think they are more elegant than the steel watches, but less loud than solid 18K ones (obviously, it's only a personal opinion). I own a genuine Breitling Chronomat, purchased twenty years ago, a stainless steel watch with golden inserts, crown and buttons. Some like it, some don't; anyway, it looks more elegant than an ordinary steel watch. I've always liked the TT Submariner, in particular the blue dial one; I could afford (however not without effort) a gen TT Submariner, but I think that Rolexes are generally ovepriced. Beside, I can think a thousand of better use regarding 6700 Euros; so buying a good rep was the obvious choice. In my experience, reps are not so bad in terms of reliability and wear. A friend of mine gave me a Submariner rep as a present in August 2001; compared to today's replica, it's a ridiculously inaccurate reproduction. But it's still in excellent condition, the rough usage notwithstanding; wearing it, I swimmed, dived, jogged, even performed karate katas. Because of punching during a kata (not executed in a dojo of course), a spring bar actually bended; but the watch never stopped working. On these basis, buying a quality rep, that could last several years, was my intention. An essential requirement concerned the golden parts, that would have been in solid gold: purchasing a beautiful and reliable watch and putting it away because of the tarnished or faded parts makes little sense. I read several posts about WM9; most of them included many criticisms, but none of them seemed to be substantial; besides, some people (like jake48) had espressed their appreciation. So I directly asked George "are the golden parts plated or wrapped?". He replied, verbatim "The gold part on the 2 tone Submariner 16613 is made of real 18k yellow gold, not wrapped or plated"; and I had no reasons for doubting, so I ordered the watch. Some people say that, considering the cost of the gold and the weight of the bracelet links, the price of a TT Sub couldn't lesser than 1000 Euros. This objection would be valid for an item lawfully manifactured and distributed; but the replicas are considered illegal goods virtually in any country of the world. So it's unlikely that someone crafting illegal items gets (precious) raw materials through lawful channels; it's much more likely that he purchases gold remelted from second-hand jewels (at that even of doubtful provenance), at a fraction of the price. Hence, I assumed that George said the truth. Since there are some differences between the watch I ordered and the one reviewed by jake48, this post has to be regarded as an update. I haven't any gen TT sub on hand; so, I could only compare my watch with pictures of the original ones dowloaded from websites. The first difference dwells in the price; currently, the watch is cheaper than before, costing 572 USD that, considering the current rate of exchange, are equivalent to about 375 Euros. Unfortunately, the Italian customs charged me further 24 Euros (about 38$), so I paid a total amount of 399 Euros (610$), sum that you usually pay for a quality watch. Is the WM9 Submariner a quality watch? Let's see... The bracelet The bracelet arrived first, without the watch, together with a birthday greetings card, in style of WM9. Some people consider it an eccentricity, but I suppose that George has good reasons for this oddity. The bracelet looks excellent. I wasn't be able to notice any evidence referable to a wrapping or plating process. The inner parts of the SEL seemed tarnished, but this sort of "coat" was removable scraping it with a little screwdriver. Unfortunately, it has a little dent on the golden part of the clasp. The diver extension end of the clasp isn't in contact with the bracelet, but this seems common to the gen bracelet too. The golden midlinks are deathly sensitive; you may scratch them with a cotton tip. The links look absolutely identical to the genuine ones (with a gen Rolesium link in the picture below) I'm sorry, but I didn't dare to make a hole in a midlink in order to verify that they actually consist of solid gold. I trust George; if the links turn out to be plated, I'll put a curse on him. The watch It arrived perfectly wrapped in a bubbled sheet, with a plastic protection on the bezel. The dial printing is very good; the font is the one with the flat "S" on SUBMARINER (as for the others Subs from WM9). Maybe it's less common, but the TT Sub depicted on the Rolex site sports that font. The hour markers and the hands seem to be closer to gen than the "NoobFactory" Sub ones; at least, I got such an impression comparing my photo (that isn't good indeed) with those from the review written by By-Tor. The only flaw I was be able to notice concerns the date window. It seems to me that it's too small, and the smaller size is counterbalanced by a greater magnification power of the loupe. This has two "side effects": 1) the date font seems too big: the numbers "touch" the window's edges 2) when the dial is seen from some angles, the date window looks misaglined, because the parallax is amplified by the greater magnification power. In my opinion, this isn't a minor flaw because the latter "side effect" is pretty noticeable. The crown tube is no more "old style"; the watch comes provided with the gen style, correct, tube, as for the 16610. It should be noted that the watch now comes with a non-holographic sticker as for the new Supreme Submariner from Precious Time (same source?) The laser etched coronet is visible to the naked eye, but not so noticeable as it appears on the pictures. It's slightly less evident than in my SSD; I guess that the occasional observer can't see it. On the other hand, the coronet can be seen even in photos of a gen (see the picture from the above-mentioned By-Tor review); all things considered, it isn't perfect, but it's acceptable. The crownguards are thick, but definitely less thick than on my unmodified SSD; in my opinion, the thickness and the shape of the CGs are acceptable, and I won't modify them. The movement I can say nothing about it, because I haven't open the caseback. It supposed to be a Swiss ETA 2836-A2; at least, so George says, and I currently trust him. It's a 4 Hz movement indeed (it can easily gathered looking at the second hand), but the rotor is noisy, much more than in my SSD (both should be equipped with the same 2836-A2 movement); besides, I met some difficulty in pulling out the crown. Two or three times I shifted the crown at second notch so that the hands could be set, but the second hand kept on running. I don't know the reason; I hope the issue is in some way related to the running-in of the movement mentioned on the Watchmaker9 website. I asked George that confirmed my guess; and I trusted him once again. Final notes The watch is a beauty, the only faults being the date window issue. So, is the watch worth the price? Undoubtely, if the golden parts are in solid gold and the movement will work for decades (as it should do). If not so, purchasing a "noobfactory" TT Sub remains the best option. Time will tell...

All the fake papers I've seen so far, are "old style" certificates, with old addresses reported on the back side. I think they are incorrect for watches purchased after early '90s. I can post a comparative picture, if you like. Since 2007, the warranty papers are in credit card style

Not enough. It should be no less that this: with the dial virtually set in the arm

I'm into the rep world for few months, and this is my second post (I've only reported a scam site) First of all, heartfelt thanks to all members for sharing their knowledge. I noticed that some people, that intend to buy a second-hand genuine Rolex, can often meet some difficulty in identifying a probable rep passed off as a gen (e.g. http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showtopic=77988); some others claim that an AD might not be able to distinguish a good rep from a gen. I own a gen YM Rolesium, a gen Breitling Chronomat (which means Valjoux 7750), a SeaDweller rep (ETA 2824-2), and a couple of cheap Submariners (maybe Miyota). My brother owns a gen Submariner and a rep Explorer II (ETA 2836-2). When you set the time, in order to put the clock forward, you have to turn counterclockwise the crown of all watches, but the gens. In order to put the clock forward on a 3135-based watch, you have to turn the crown clockwise. So, I guess that the detection of a fake shouldn't be so tricky (for the 3135 watches at least), but it seems to me that this matter hasn't been duly emphasized. Am I right, or I missed something? What is your opinion?

Another attractive site is www.midawatch.com. Actually they are scammers of the worst description.