By-Tor

If you ordered 2007, TTK has probably shipped it last week. Good luck!

I checked and you're right. But they come both ways. My K-serial 16610 Sub has polished bracelet edges. I don't know if that has been done by RSC but they're definitely polished. https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=320814

Doesn't make any sense at all to buy replicas for women. There are tons of pre-owned very good looking gens (TAG, Ebel, Rolex, Omega) of the ladies watches available. The prices start from $250. Why would anyone buy a Chinese knockoff of a ladies' watch for $500? when you can buy very nice gens for that price?

That 16610 is very good rep. Date font, pearl and crown position are still screwed though. And the SELs and lugs will never look 100% no matter how much the factories try. This is among the best I've seen though. Also the silky feel of the gen bracelet can't quite be achieved. The bracelet edges should be polished to mirror finish. I don't know if that's still the issue but I had to polish them myself (for my WM9 v2). I have gen 16610 and WM9 v2. All in all that's a GREAT rep and as a watch it's SO much better looking than its successor 6-digit. Realistically, it can't get much better than that. Cheers.

The old 16613 TT Submariner reps had middle links that were "solid shit". Whatever that material was (brass, etc) it didn't wear off. I'd like to see even ONE decent gold replica where the gold has been worn off. I've never seen one. I've seen those ultra cheapie Canal street ones though... but not a decent one. If you have one, please share pics. I'd say it's quite safe to buy the quality reps with fake gold plating. They look pretty good... at least the ones that I've had.

@watcher: Oh yes I do. I also have gen 16610 but I still wear my WM9 occasionally haha. You delivered me the watch and bklm1234 gave me the gen insert and crown for it as a wedding gift. I will never part with it because of that. The only way to tell the gen and rep apart is the crown position and bracelet (it's always a bit different on the rep). This photo is probably before the mods. Merry Christmas my friend.

I believe that MBW was the same watch as the WM1.

I had that rep too.

@alligoat: That watch in the picture was WM9 v1 (I think). At least that's how it was labeled. TAG Aquaracer day-date rep 45mm. Very nice. And one more 16570

This was Sub 16610 WM1. The first Sub that really, really was the SHIT. In the second picture it's next to my gen GMT again and you see why this was a remarkable rep. It mimicked the genuine looking crystal / rehaut look very well. I loved the V1.

I'm in various gen communities so I don't feel like posting my gen pics here. But let's share more of these rep ones. I also had a correct hand stack version of this. Then I bought the gen and sold all these reps. Who remembers buying these from me and are they still running? I sold this to someone.

Oh I remember you. Cheers man. I was away for years. Now I try to pop up every now and then. Let's put more pictures. This was the freakiest rep I've ever had. Not very accurate as the subdial spacing can't mimic the Breguet movement they use in BTR's but the build quality was amazing. I loved the rep so much that I bought a gen of this too.

Thanks. Here are my franken Explorer II 16750's. Now I have the gen but these were DAMN good.

Nice work. But once again it's pathetic that the factories screw up things like this (if it was already done well in the previous versions).

Hey I found a folder in my hard drive that has some classic replica pictures that I've taken back in the day. First there was this "ceramic" GMT that came out. It was pretty damn good rep. As a watch it's boring as hell though. Third picture it's next to my gen 16710. Fourth picture has a NOKIA phone. The phones were a bit different back in those days too. Cheers. I'll post more later.