By-Tor

Ah... but I have a feeling that Breitling and TAG both call them "calibre XXX" but simply use the basic ETA with a changed rotor.

I have no facts though... just guessing as neither brands rarely use inhouse movements anywhere.

@HikeUSA: I think you misunderstood me... my bad, I probably didn't explain it very clearly... yes of course we shoot in the highest resolution. But all basic (decent) cameras have the option to shoot in resolutions high enough. Something like 2272 x 1704 is enough.

I was talking about really, really big resolutions that are required when you take pictures for magazines (I work in one). The requirements are different and those resolutions aren't needed in watch photography (when the photos are taken only Internet in mind).

Based on the subdial arrangement I assume this watch uses the same movement as TAG Monaco and Autavia. So that would be ETA 2894/2?

I have an expensive Canon 7D DSLR and a basic PowerShot A520. I have shot watch photos with both but I haven't seen any difference in results (in the lightbox setting). ZERO. I prefer my PowerShot in watch photos because it's more handy in many ways.

Camera means probably about 0.5% in lightbox watch photos, when you have the ideal lighting. Better camera can only correct (some) problems of the insufficient setup but it doesn't make anyone's bad pictures any better. It can only make them "a bit less awful".

Macros and natural lighting... then it's a different ballgame of course. More advanced camera also has its advantages in very, very large resolutions (we use very large resolutions in the magazine where I'm an editor at) but then again such resolutions are completely useless here as we resize our photos to small dimensions.

It's the most common misunderstanding when people wonder about the bad quality... they usually blame the camera when they should blame their setup. Buying a new camera won't help... just like wearing Diego Maradona's shoes won't make anyone a genius football player.

Hi Anguz,

to become a good watch photographer requires a lot of practice and trial & error (to learn from your mistakes). But shooting watches can be incredibly rewarding.

Pugwash's tutorials are a great start (see the stickies in that subforum)

http://www.rwgforum.com/forum/166-pugwashs-tips-tricks-tutorials/

Hehe that's a cool saying Lani. "One legged man in an arse kicking contest".

No not busy at all right now... that's why I have time to shoot some watches... and I love it. More is to come.

That's a great watch.

How would you compare the Seagull-powered rep to this one? I doubt it's very accurate but is it even "semi-decent"?

PS: We don't have separate gen/rep sections... all watches go to the same brand subforums. Most of our members own both gens and reps.

Ditto what they all say: extremely cool watch. Tudors are amazing!

Actually the blue dial Tudor Tiger Chrono is my personal favorite from this model series, but of course how could you fault the white... always a classy color choice.

Really, really nice results... and it's a very beautiful watch. I love it... but does it have the default MBW pearl? If it does, I'd get rid of it asap.

It'd look very cool without a pearl... that suits well for the vintages. Especially for the ones with faded bezel.

@Stephane: Do you have two DJ's now? I recall you bought a steel version just recently.

Man... Rolex owns your soul man... but I love it.

Thanks warren. After a longish break I've really enjoyed shooting watches again.

...are simply more "photogenic" than others.

Very artistic shots! That's the nicest model of DJ that I've seen yet.

Just shot this picture... this watch never ceases to amaze me. The bracelet, design and overall quality of the rep...

I'm wearing the oldest rep in my collection today. Never get tired of this fantastic one.

Genuine watch elitism is for genuine watch sites. It's so; not Zen.

You know what's the worst bunch: Seasoned rep buyers who buy their first expensive gen and become "gen snobs" and start to look reps down their noses. Some of these people act like they're "born again" or something.

They're all just watches. Who really cares if it's a gen or rep... if you like the style/model, just wear it and enjoy.

I also find it weird that people say "how utterly superior" the gens are. It's true with some models that are difficult to replicate, and with Breguet/JLC/Patek type of ultimate watches... but in most cases (with Rolex/TAG/Breitling/Omega class) the actual visual differences are minimal.

SELs are pretty much luck of a draw in all Rolex reps.

About SSD... I have always said that it's a terrible replica. Ubi, Stephane and everyone else said that too, but this advice went to deaf ears.

I have no idea why the membership fell for the hype, and why it was/is considered anything special. It's very inaccurate rep with lots of QC problems... it's not even among the top 15 Rolex replicas, imho.

Wow... a gen Broad Arrow. Is that a recent purchase?

Amazing watch.

@Star69: Is that the WM9 Yachtie? Looks fantastic.

I guess this was about Rolex Oysterquartz.

Well here's a good site which is all about this model:

http://www.oysterquartz.net/

@Lani: That Tudor is perfect now! Congrats for the Doxa!

I'm wearing my Aquaracer today.

He actually says it's a genuine mother-of-pearl dial.

People say lots of silly, dishonest things when they're trying to rip off someone.

It's a free world and everyone can use their money as they wish... but why would you even consider buying absolute junk from Craigslist scammers when we have dealers who can offer superior stuff?

I guess it's my turn to start a wrist check (for once).

Starting my Thursday with the Seamaster.

The watch is absolutely perfect.

But you have to put it on a Oyster.

@Arthur: This is very common misunderstanding. The old GMT Masters (like 1675 and 16750) are totally different in every way. The 1575 movement is not a complication but the 3185 (which the new Rolex GMT's use) is.

I own the modern GMT Master II 16710 with 3185 movement. That watch doesn't have an independently adjustable GMT hand... it has an adjustable hour hand which moves in one hour increments. The function is similar on the CHS replica (except that the gen doesn't have a quickset date, which is terribly annoying). The 24h hand and 12h hand are always in sync automatically.

I meant that the WHS version is similar with 1575 in the sense that the hand stack is the same and the hour hand isn't adjustable. The freely adjustable GMT hand is totally weird on the reps because it moves freely around the dial and the owner can set it to any position (even not syncing with the hour hand). That's why you have to set the second timezone in-sync manually. If the factories simply removed the independent 24h hand setting, it would be exactly similar functionality as on 1575.

The 1575 movement is functional as a second timezone watch on your GMT Master because the watch has rotating bezel. But Explorer II Orange hand has a fixed bezel. How can you use it as a 2nd timezone watch? There is no way. Only the "cave dwellers" can see the beauty of this feature, which makes it extremely pretentious model (imho). The modern Explorer II's use the 3185 movements so they function perfectly as GMT watches.