By-Tor

Yes of course. Freddy's photos are great and often very clever.

But this was supposed to be a wrist shot thread where members post their own.

Maybe you have noticed that I haven't taken many watch photos lately. I haven't had time, which is the main reason... but I'm not that inspired with studio photos in the lightbox setup anymore. I guess it's safe to say that I'm (at least temporarily) bored with them.

And they don't offer much challenge anymore... there's so much you can do when you figure out the lighting and post processing tricks. When I started doing watch reviews I spent HOURS to get 5-6 technically good photos. It was very hard but that's exactly why it was fun and fascinating. There was a genuine challenge. Now I can pretty much shoot all pictures in one take (10 minutes) and they're all usable. I'm not saying this because I'm bragging about it, just explaining why they don't inspire me any more.

As you become a better photographer (and better with PS) your photos tend to become a bit "sterile". The photo might be technically good but the watches aren't in their natural evinronment in artificial lighting. They're also plasticy "glamour photos" which aren't completely realistic. However, I love glamour photos. But read on...

I love seeing watch photos and discussing watch photography. My friends Bazz, Pugs, Ubi and many others have always shared our techniques and secrets. We used to discuss photography with Neil too (when he was still around).

However, the biggest photo inspiration for me here has been RobbieG.

Why? Because his wrist shot and natural light photos are completely different from mine. We always shot lightbox shots. But Robbie was the first one who made "glamour wrist shots" and Photoshopped them. When I mean "Photoshopped" I mean that he cleaned them up, but didn't "fake" anything and the end result looked very authentic (no pun). That's what the goal SHOULD be... use PS to make the watch look exactly like it would look in real life.

I never paid attention to natural light photos and my wrist shots have always been average at best. I'm only good with my setup and the studio pictures. But lately I've been trying to take some inspiring wrist shots.

They're much more fascinating than studio pics because you'll see the watch in its natural evinronment: On someone's wrist.

I'll start. This is a tribute to Robbie, who's blue genuine SFSO wrist shot is the best and most attractive wrist shot I have seen, and pushed me to think about the gen purchase. My SFSO is just a rep (so far) but it tries to capture the same magic.

Let's try to get some really, really attractive wrist shots. I'm sure you all have them already... so post your favorites and special ones. New or old shots, doesn't matter. And remember... this is not a competition... just an excuse to see more lovely watches.

One per post to avoid "flooding". Quality over quantity. Only the very special ones.

Unfortunately this one makes Breguet seem positively cheap.

List Price (used): $136,320.

Depends on the Breguet model though. Double Tourbillon A Grande Complication is over 300.000 Euros.

Not my cup of tea though.

I examined the gen in the AD as well. But I didn't even notice the cyclops AR... but I noticed the MUCH shinier bezel, which on the gen has different, almost brown tone (when the light hits it from certain angle). Besides the very disappointing unsymmetric rehaut engraving, bezel is the biggest difference, imho... replica can't quite duplicate that.

But still, it's very decent rep. This was mine.

Maybe you're right. Bummer.

That watch is SO nice... my brother owns my old watch and I would have purchased another. This used to be very sought after rep, but I'm not sure if it'd be that today (in the age of all these "super reps").

Hey... who still remembers my ancient review (from 2005) of the legendary plastic crystal Speedy Broad Arrow?

Read it here.

I went to the dealers' sites looking for the new stuff and found this from the Silix site.

Note that the first pictures are of the much nicer plastic crystal version that I reviewed. The last 3 pictures on the lower right corner, however, are of the disappointing new version which has a sapphire crystal and overall much less impressive presence.

My review watch wasn't accurate replica... that's not the point. But it was hell of a nice watch. If Silix can really source the old classic version for $250, it'd be quite cool.

Or perhaps the first photos are just very old photos and they don't see the difference between these 2 versions? Wouldn't actually surprise me at all.

Just curious...

Lots of variation. Very nice collection.

Gen white Discovery pictures

Great deal on the gen here.

We all know it already but it's still pretty amazing how close the rep is.

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you... weird that we don't see that many Grand Carreras here. Maybe some people are a bit hesitant because of the size.

Yeah there are some small flaws but nothing that serious. Very nice rep.

@Doc: I definitely agree about Aquagraph. A stunning piece.

Personally I'm a sucker for blue dials so I chose the basic 'Racer chrono.

People who say that TAG doesn't match Omega or Rolex in finish & quality are talking out of their arses. Maybe the quartz models aren't at the same level but the Racer and the newest Link Chrono series are beautifully finished watches.

My BTR again. This gets a lot of wrist time these days.

Yeah there is a midsize SMP but not of the chronograph. They're all full size.

The diameter of the SMP Chrono isn't big, but the watch wears pretty big because it's thick and bulky. I would say it's a "big watch" although the actual diameter isn't.

Gigantic, oversized watches have changed the whole definition of "big". People call 40mm "small" these days which is just wrong, imho.

Personally, I like my 45mm Ebel BTR but that's already pushing it. 49mm Super Avenger is just too much. And it has nothing to do with the wrist size, it's a balance issue for me. I'm a photographer and aesthete.

That IS a classy watch.

I doubt there was "lack of interest". But I think you're the first one here who purchased the watch. Difficult to post pictures if you don't have it, eh?

Congrats, great piece!

Personally, I never take my watches to water. Reps or gens.

Mainly because I don't have to know the time when I'm swimming or showering. And I've heard enough horror stories of people ruining their super expensive genuines in water. These exact same precautionary things apply to gens as well... they have to be watertested too. The construction of cases is the same. If it's an old watch you never know who did the last service and how the case was screwed in/water tested.

But still, I believe 95% of the basic reps with screw down crowns are waterproof at least to some extent. Chronographs are completely different matter. But why risk it?

@Lani: My white Explorer II is not genuine. It's a frankenwatch with genuine dial, correct hand stack ETA and rare Noobfactory old case.

What they said.

Reps have individual differences and generally little or no QC. One rep might be waterproof and another one not.

SD4k wrote a great review of reps and their water resistance.

Read it here.

Guys, I have pinned 2 remarkable watch reviews in this section.

I'm not that familiar with AP so let me know if there's a milestone AP review that should be pinned.

Thanks.

Glad you're enjoying it Pugs.

I agree, it's a nice looking watch but I feel differently about it. For me it's a clear departure from the traditions. That's why I ended up trading mine.

Those fat lugs, big crown and polished middle links weren't welcome changes. Lack of Pepsi bezel was the final nail on the coffin for me. The 24 click bezel, however, should be in the original GMT as well... it makes perfect sense.

It's ironic... the Rolex fans always complained how the clasp is so pathetic and the Oyster bracelet is so flimsy... but when they make the changes they aren't accepted by the purists.

But then again, this is the only nice watch Rolex has released in recent years. All other new releases, like YMII, Deep Sea Dweller and even the blue dial white gold Sub are simply dreadful (imho). But this should be called GMT III instead. It's clearly not the same watch as classic 1675, 16710 and their incarnations.

I believe it's the upcoming version which will have the correct vertical crown position.

I will never sell mine. I managed to transform SELs from the v1 to my v2 (tight and snug) and the watch is just amazing.

I had a price negotiation of a preowned gen blue SFSO in one of the gen forums, and I got the price down enough. I was ready to make the deal but the seller withdrew his sale. Damn!

I'm still waiting for a good deal on that watch. If anyone in EU knows a good one (below $1.500) let me know. And yes... good ones CAN be obtained for that price.

Not a big fan of this model (gen or rep) but the review was amazing. Thanks Gio!

PS: Blue lume is accurate for this watch.

That is SO amazing Lani. There's not even one watch in those pictures that I don't like.

All those beautiful classic gens, GMT, Speedy, ExpII, etc. and I agree with Gio... that 2x AR'd classic SMP Chrono is just fantastic.

I would probably choose some super expensive watch, like Breguet Type XX chronograph full gold. Something that I would treat like a treasure.

But if I had to choose one gen to wear, I would choose the watch I already own... GMT 16710. My dream watch since I was 13 years old.

For me, no other Rolex comes even close (save the 1675 Pepsi of course).

Crown position flaw being "very noticeable" is exaggerating, imho. It took several years from the RWG members to even start discussing about this flaw. Members are so obsessed with the Submariner that they completely lose their perspective... me thinks you have to place the rep beside the gen to notice this... or be a compulsive-obsessive RWG Sub nerd.

Besides, the crown position varies greatly between the reps. Maybe it's a Sub issue, but the Noobfactory Explorer II, for example, has pretty much perfect crown position. The WHS is 98% correct, and the CHS is 100% correct.

I've read from many sources that "all Rolex replicas have wrong crown position". This is definitely a myth.