By-Tor

The idea for this review came from Eurotimez, who originally sent me the Noobfactory TT Sub for a review a while back. This article is actually a sequel to that one.

Read the review HERE.

The idea is to compare the two best two-tone Submariners in the market. Actually there's still one top contender, the WM9 version, but that version isn't readily available through our dealers.

I won't comment the gold issue (again), but both of these watches are said to have gold that will never wear off. I don't have a problem believing it, as gold looks and feels excellent on both watches.

MBK (or MBW) Submariner 16613 is based on a very old replica model, and it has similar characteristics as the classic "TW Best" model. This replica type has very deep rehaut, big date magnification (a bit oversized actually) and very good quality "feel" which compensates the minutia inaccuracies. MBK/TW watches used to have low quality dials, but it has been improved greatly for this new two-tone version. This "2008 model" also has subtle ROLEXROLEXROLEX engraved on the rehaut. The crown guards are ok but not perfect. They seem to be extremely easy to modify though (just remove a little bit from the front insides).

The "Noobfactory" Submariner 16613 is basically a Noobmariner with gold parts. It has shorter rehaut, but excellent date magnification. Some people claim it's a bit too small. I still think the Noob date is much better, because the double digits correctly will not fill the entire date window. The most impressive detail on the Noob is the dial print, which is virtually perfect. The Noob has better crown guards as well. I wouldn't even bother touching them.

One thing that surprised me with the MBK is the amazing depth of the blue dial. Not that there's anything wrong with Noob version, but the MBK dial really screams quality. The bezel insert is much glossier and shinier on the MBK as well. The print isn't quite as good and sharp, but M and m align nicely and I don't find anything to complain, really. The rehaut engraving is a bit too tall, but it's perfecly symmetric (unlike the GMT IIc engraving). I'm not a huge fan of the engraving, and I'd choose my watch without it. But it's bothering me much less than I thought, it's not very noticeable in real life.

We all know how good the "Noobfactory" GMT 16710 and 16610 Submariner dials are. They're probably the best rep dials ever produced. 16613 print is on the same level, but the color depth on the tt version isn't quite as deep as the MBK. Still, a superb dial. I think the dial competition is a tie.

Here's an outside comparison of the watches. MBK on the right. Notice the stronger blue color. Also notice the thicker white crystal "seal ring" on the Noob version, which makes the area just below the crystal look "matte". This makes the rehaut look lower than it actually is. The gen Rolexes have similar "ring" but it's glossier and shinier. We geeks call this effect "rehaut thickness". The MBK has decent rehaut thickness as well. From this angle the MBK looks more accurate, but from the straight front view the Noob looks superior.

Here you can see the difference in the actual rehaut depth. It's not that dramatic at all, but for some people this small difference has become very important. Personally, I consider the thickness effect and correct shape of the rehaut much more important. Noob is a bit too short, but it still wins the rehaut competition overall (just imho). The WM9 version is the only Submariner replica which has nailed this problem area almost perfectly.

In the closeup pictures the MBK looks a bit "wokky", but it's not much of an issue in real life. The SELs are a bit nicer on the Noobfactory version, as there's a slight gap between the lugs and SEL on the MBK. However the MBK has nicer, thicker bezel and more accurate crystal height.

Both watches have the whole SELs covered with gold. On the MBK (left) there's a gold layer over the SEL, and sides are just plated. On the Noob version the whole end link is "solid", as per gen. Visually, the inaccurate MBK SEL isn't any kind of issue, as it's very difficult to notice. Still, the Noob takes the SEL competition.

The clasp on the MBW is way superior. The gold has been applied smoothly and almost perfectly. The picture probably doesn't show the difference, but in r/l the plating on the clasp area leaves a lot to be desired (on the Noob version). The plating on the crown is much better and smoother on the MBK version as well. The plating on the Noob isn't bad or annoying, but it's noticeable in certain lighting (and from certain angles).

So which one is better?

MBK feels a bit more substantial, it has deeper blue dial, deeper rehaut, and superior plating on the crown & clasp.

Noob has better dial, better (smaller) datemag, better date font (double digits not filling the entire cyclops), better SELs, better pearl and better rehaut shape & thickness.

The Noob is a bit more accurate of the two. If these were stainless steel versions, I'd choose the Noob without hesitation. But when it's about gold watches, there are some other factors to consider. The problem with Noob is that MBW feels a bit more substantial, and it simply "feels" more expensive watch. This has always been the case with MBK/TW watches, and I understand why so many people are fans of them.

I thought long and hard about this. But from these two otb replicas, I would probably choose the MBK version. But then again, if the Noob had MBK's crown and clasp, I would choose it instead. MBK is over $100 more expensive than the solid gold Noob version, so this might be a factor to some buyers as well.

The biggest annoyance on the MBW is the date magnification, especially with double digits. Noob crushes its competition in this department. A bit sloppy plating on the crown and clasp area are the "Noob's" only real issues. The Noob is definitely easier to modify to "almost perfect" shape. It only needs new crown, really. After the clasp gets the normal hairline scratches (and believe me, it does), the uneven plating surface will become much less of an issue.

I can't really say which one is better, bar none. That'll be interesting to discuss in this open thread. Please post your thoughts and questions and I'll try to answer them as well as I can.

Either way, after seeing these two watches I have changed my thinking of the two-tone replicas. Both are good and substantial gold watches. If you're a fan of the two-tone Submariner you can purchase either one of these with a peace of mind. These have come a long way in three years.

Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed this article. Thanks also to Eurotimez (again) for borrowing these fine watches. Hopefully there's more where these came from.

--------------------

IMPORTANT NOTE: I will not reply to watch/part/mod questions via PM from the members anymore. I'd love to help everyone privately, but my PM box gets flooded/spammed these days with these enquiries and I simply don't have the time. This is a hobby for me, not a job. Please ask your questions in the public forum where you have thousands of potential helpers. It's nothing personal. Thanks for understanding.            By-Tor.