By-Tor

Another "review watch" for me. I wanted to see this, because I've never seen a decent Day-Date/DateJust replica. I asked Chris to get one for a review and he said "sure, just pick your model". Once again, the blue (or actually turquoise) dial was the most attractive for me. Another reason I wanted to write this article was that there has never been a decent review of a replica DJ/DD. Quite weird, considering how popular and well known this watch is. Time to change that, and have some serious DD/DJ conversation!

The Day Date is actually the "top model" of Rolex, and it's only available in precious metals. This article tells pretty much everything about the history of the DD, and why it earned the nickname "President".

The band is called "Presidential" bracelet, and it's completely different from the Jubilé that's commonly used on the DateJust. It's quite flimsy and lightweight in typical Rolex fashion.

This turquoise dial variation is only available in platinum (as a gen), but the replica is (of course) completely made of stainless steel. There are DD's made in yellow, pink and white gold as well. White gold doesn't actually look that much different from SS, but naturally it makes the watch significantly heavier. The gen WG versions weigh over 170 grams, which is a lot for a watch this small! I don't have the weight numbers for the platinum version, but I believe it might be in the same range.

There have been rumors of "white gold plated" replicas, but I believe they're just that... rumors. Our "bling expert" jfreeman wrote an excellent description of the white gold:

"Rolex has a proprietary process to manufacture white gold and rose gold that will never change color. Most all white gold jewelry and watches are plated with rhodium except Rolex. White gold is achieved by mixing gold with nickel. Without the rhodium it will always have a yellow tint. The process Rolex invented is heavily guarded but produces white gold that is brighter than any other and will never fade. I have white gold jewelry that is turning yellow due to the rhodium wearing off.

With that said there is no such thing as white gold plating. It is chemically impossible unless you have the proprietary formula from Rolex. Seeing that Rhodium is the most expensive metal in the world, currently trading at around $6,000 per ounce, it is highly unlikely that a replica manufacturer is plating anything with rhodium."

The watch diameter is only 36 millimeters, and the small size looks a bit old-fashioned next to these huge modern watches. Smaller size is probably the biggest reason why DD and DJ have never been big sellers among our membership.

However, DD and DJ are very good sellers for Rolex, and these models are extremely popular in Asia, where men are (generally) smaller, and have smaller wrists. I actually took a few wristshots of the DD but it admittedly looked a bit "out of place" on my '8 wrist, so I decided to post some on my wifé's wrist. She's a small woman and I think this watch looks great on her.

 

 

How about the accuracy then?

Of course the weight is off, because I chose this particular replica (that only has a platinum gen counterpart). There are probably more accurate replicas in the DateJust line, but none of them look as good as this (imho). And one thing that's very characteristic for the whole DJ/DD line is the HUGE variation of different dials. There are hundreds of them. I'm not an expert in these models, but I've noticed how difficult it has always been to "spot" the reps in the DJ/DD line (even for our senior members). RobbieG just recently posted a Rolex dial reference, which shows the current dials on production. On top of this, there are tons of "unofficial" variations, which (again) makes identifying the reps even tougher.

Here is the gen counterpart (on the right). As you can see the Roman numerals are a bit thicker on the gen, and the crown seems to be a 6mm twinlock (same as Exp and GMT). It's a bit different on the rep. The day font and other dial details are actually very close. Isn't it funny how much off center the gen datewheel is!?

Here's a better photo of the rep daywheel (with MONDAY set on). The watch is really beautiful. The lugs and bracelet middle links have been polished to mirror finish.

So, after seeing this watch... am I a believer?

Yes and no. When the Day Date was first introduced to the Rolex lineup in 1956, the standard watch size was different. Admittedly this watch represents a "different era" in many ways, including the history it carries. Personally, I wouldn't wear a watch this small, but then I'm a big man with thick wrists. There are bigger classic dress models, such as Omega Aqua Terra, that I personally consider better alternatives for me. On the other hand, this blue Day-Date is among the most beautiful watches I have seen.

The watch has some flaws, but it's still very believable and substantial replication. This is definitely the most gorgeous version in the whole DD/DJ lineup and I wouldn't even consider any other variation. This particular turquoise dial is simply stunning, and Day Date is definitely a prestigious looking dress model for any smaller man (or woman).

This thread is about Aquatimer Ti. No more personal vendettas and pissing contests, or the warning levels will be adjusted.

Thank you.

I find this watch to have the most reflective crystal I have ever seen.

Indeed. Quite difficult to photograph too (because of the reflections). This is one of the few lucky shots I ever got.

Thanks jfreeman, great info. If you don't mind, I'll quote that for my next review... which is of a Presidential DayDate. Of course the watch is a rep of white gold model, and it's all-stainless... but either way it's quite nice.

I'm wearing the magnificent Ebel today.

Thanks Gentlemen!

@cornerstone: I doubt the bezel is full ceramic, but it has a "ceramic coating", whatever that means. At least that's how it was described. It could be some kind of hard plastic too... but the shine is very respectable.

This is a great looking watch, but I am also unsure if this is a watch for me. I find myself to be more of a classics kind of guy and would prefer a 16750 or 16710 over this one...

I agree... I prefer the classics too, but this replication was just too good to ignore.

PS: Thanks all, I appreciate the feedback and comments!

No ownership experience, but I have driven that car. It's a big one and with today's gas prices it's not a cheap one to maintain.

Great car though.

Aquaracer today.

Yes, that's the reference 2255.80.00: Seamaster Electric Blue.

That Silix rep isn't very good though. The dial color is way off (among other things). Check the Omega guide (which is pinned on this forum), there are review links to much better replications.

Bulova is an old American-based watch brand (originally). But just like Sandoz and Gruen (which are old Swiss brands), they might have Asian-based production as well. "Swiss" Sandoz is Singapore-based and produces blatant Rolex design ripoffs (just like Invicta) and uses ETA movements.

I wouldn't be surprised if these watches were "genuine"... if you can call Asian-produced Rolex ripoff watches "genuine".

Interesting anyway (not for me personally, but trivially).

This is the 49mm XXL version, right?

Well... I think that watch is just too big. Same thing with the SA. I can't seem to connect with watches that big... somehow the aesthetics and symmetry gets completely screwed up on them. I like the smaller Bentley though... very handsome watch.

Just a taste thing probably, but 49mm is (imho) simply insane.

Those watchsmiths in the Rolex AD's aren't necessarily great ones. I took my 16710 to a basic check, and the (young, in his early 30's) watchsmith took it in. After being there for 2 hours he gave me a call and said the following:

"The watch has wrong oils, it needs service, and it will cost you 400 EUR".

Well, ironically this same watch had just been checked by the Rolex AD at London, and they said the watch is functioning very well. It was serviced by them 2 years ago.

I replied:

"Strange that it has wrong oils, because the watch is running in COSC standards and has a superb power reserve".

The guy replied:

"Yes, but there's too much oil... they have used wrong oils and the oil is all over the place".

This all sounded fishy to me, and I didn't leave perfectly functioning watch there. They just exchanged the bezel insert and I was happy with it. When I picked up my watch, I met the guy... and he was both young and enthusiastic. I talked with him about different Rolex models, and the guy knew it all. Well that's what he thought... I didn't want to correct the many mistakes he made during our conversation, or embarrass him and start an argument when he claimed that GMT II has never been offered with plastic crystals.

Ziggy said that the guy is full of it, and this is the exact same comment I got from another qualified watchsmith. You can't determine how well the movement is oiled without completely breaking down the watch.

And it's possible that your guy who works for Rolex, and has (probably) been brainwashed with Rolex-brand attitude, can't make objective comments about Rolex, either.

Rolex is not the greatest watch, not even close... it's way overhyped and nothing that special, really. At least not anything like its reputation makes it out to be. The movements are good and reliable, but so are the movements in Citizen and Timex. 70% of the price comes from mystique, traditions and prestigious name. That being said, I love the Oyster sports models... they simply are... Rolex. And no other luxury brand keeps their value as well (or even increases it) as SS sports Rolexes... no competition there.

But still, after getting a gen, I'm much happier with my reps (and ETAs). They're so amazing. I think it's wrong when people say that "you can't compare the rep and gen". This might apply to brands like Breguet and Patek... but with ETA-powered Rolex, Breitling and Omega reps... you absolutely can.

I also wonder why this got bumped from the archives.

But anyway... looking back this thread now, my reply was brutally honest and perhaps even rude. But then again, that's what RWG has always been about: Brutally honest reviews and no sugar coating... and the opinions were asked.

Wonder what Stephane would say about this watch now... after all the experience he has gained from gen, franken and rep Rolexes since the initial post.

IMPORTANT INFO FOR ALL OWNERS OF THIS WATCH:

When I came home from work today, took off the watch and I noticed that something dropped. Nothing dramatic, just one of the bracelet screws. When I checked them out, all of them were loose. So... the same thing applies to this rep as many others: Take off the bracelet screws one by one... at least the ones that feel loose (you need a 1.0mm screwdriver), dip all of them into a Loctite bottle and screw back in. Shouldn't be a problem after that.

I was very lucky to not to lose that screw. You might not be as lucky, if one of them drops when you're bicycling (for example).

No big deal really, just typical stuff with reps.

In sum, he said that there is just no contest between the quality and functionality of Rolex movements vs. ETA with Rolex movements being superior in toughness and overall quality in nearly every way.

Yeah, I'm sure. But the price tag is superior too... actually if you think about the value/quality ratio, ETA is simply amazing. My dad's Tudor Sub (with standard ETA movement) ran for almost 30 years without servicing. And even after that there was no damage, and it was possible to service by a watchsmith... runs well and accurately again.

One thing I've noticed on my gen Rolex compared to ETA... it requires very little wrist time to have superior power reserve. Just merely 10-15 minutes on the wrist, and it runs for 30+ hours. Though this might only be a lubrication thing (and directly related to the movement condition)... but none of my rep ETAs can quite match that.

Out of curisoity, from a size standpoint, how does this compare to your SFSO?

SFSO wears balanced too (imho), but it looks MUCH thicker and definitely requires big wrists. Discovery has slender lines, while SFSO is bulky and has bit of a "hockey puck" feel... just like the Avenger SeaWolf you used to own. The profile is completely different and SFSO feels much bigger watch of the two.

@caracarnj: Thanks man!

Yeah, a bad rep indeed... but the rep still looks better than the gen. It doesn't have the ugly protruded and badly fitting SELs as the genuine.

DeepSea is not a disgrace like YMII, it really is a tool watch with impressive technical specs, but it's just plain fugly. I wouldn't buy the rep no matter how well they'll replicate it.

The gen SFSO also has an impressive depth rating, looks 100X better and costs only 1/7.

Quite disturbing and misleading to call such a bad rep "Ultimate".

There's only one UPO. The best 42mm version is still the old 4th Gen. Nothing to see here.

Oh-Meh-Gah. The "MAY" is pronounced like the french "MAIS", ie. without the Y sound at the end.

Oh My God, what a great thread!

Ok guys, here's finally a comparison shot which (imho) shows the actual "wearing size" of this watch.

Next to my 40mm gen GMT. As you can see the advertised 44.5 is totally out of this world and inaccurate measurement. The correct diameter is 43mm, and the actual "wearing size" is like 41mm. Definitely not a big watch.

Gen for Saturday:

Uh huh, I prefer the old case.

PS: Here is more about the new Rolex models.

No.

Only two-tone and full gold YM is available in blue.