By-Tor

Welcome back thomas!

There are quite a few new AP reps out there. Some might interest you. Check out the archives.

Welcome. Link Chrono is a great choice, as it's very accurate rep. I've owned mine since August 2006. You probably read my two articles of this watch.

Enjoy!

Besides the funny threads FlipLockBuckle also posted some utter stupidity. Here's his thread, posing a genuine no-date Sub as "modded Alpha watch". The guy really was something. Check here.

GMT today.

Is this what you have been waiting for?

http://www.pc-80108.com/000iw02015-aquatim...bph-p-3185.html

"Perfect" you say? Perfect? You missed the big glaring flaw with the dial?

Figures... you like GMTs on Oysters, your vision can't be THAT good.

Never claimed to be an expert.

What's the flaw, the gap between OYSTER and PERPETUAL?

Whilst the troll is searching Google desperately, here's pic of my soon-to-be-arriving 1675, all being well.

Belongs to a friend of mine, but I keep chipping away bit by bit....nag nag pester pester....not long now I hope

That's the watch that started all for me.

And whatever you do... don't put it on a Jubilee. That's absolutely perfect how it is.

Please tell me you bought some of those by-tor?

Unfortunately not.

I considered buying the one in my first picture. But I was afraid it could be radioactive.

More gems. I saved these pics from the old RWG thread: Worst Rolex rep (anyone remembers that one?)

I guess these Daytonas come from the same factory:

Amateurs.

Found this pic from a local auction a few years ago. I think it's still the Champ. Actually it's a Day-Date, but that's just a printing error. This is Submariner alright, just look at the perfect crown guards.

Yep, you're correct. It's a different rep. Those cg's are super ugly... and the date mag is WAY too right.

Maybe an "upgraded" version... or maybe "downgraded" is the better term here.

There's no comparison... the "Noob factory" GMT is the best out there without any doubt.

The only correct hand stack GMT available has been the "Noob factory" version. I wasn't aware of any others... unless this is completely new rep model. Maybe they have built correct stack version of the old CN version, huh?

But whilst I wait, can anyone point out the obvious tell-tale signs?

No need to. Absolutely everything is wrong on that dial.

It looks good. Your watch is the old CN version. Cyclops & datewheel are positioned too right, but other than that... it's not a bad rep. It used to be the best available GMT back in 2005 or so.

I owned this one as well. Check here.

SMP Chrono since yesterday.

When you order from EU, always ask the dealers to send the watch via regular airmail. Fedex and all other commercial shipping companies are synonymous with customs problems.

Yes, it takes a bit longer but it's much safer that way.

I would make sure the chrono is "working" and not "functional".. the later being that the hands move only by pushing the pushers in .. unless you want to wear a rep that only "looks" like it works... looking at the dial at the 6 this may be just a "functioning" faux dial..i may be wrong but I would check that out.. rather than be bummed when you recieve it..

No, I think the 6' subdial is the running seconds. What I like about this rep is that the 3' and '12 subdials are correctly centered, and it doesn't seem to have the wandering 24h subdial.

Interesting quartz rep. Pix always finds these.

Looks like Andrew has a weird quartz model for sale as well. CHECK HERE. It's a day-date model and looks inferior to the watch Pix posted.

The blue version looks... mmh... horrible.

You bought TT, blue and white versions? Wow!

I actually like the white stainless version a lot. Now you need the black one to complete the collection.

For those us new to the hobby could you please elaborate on the crystal/rehaut profile. The CG's and pearl can be fixed, so I'm okay if they are flawed, but I'd like to know a bit more about the flaws you mentioned. Thanks for any illumination you can provide.

This was discussed already in great detail in the previous threads (before this watch even surfaced), mainly by bklm and me.

As you can see from the comparison picture the rehaut profile on the rep looks absolutely NOTHING like the gen. It looks smooth and wrong, while this part of the watch on the genuine Dweller has very characteristic shape. Gen has two deep "dents" and extremely thick front rehaut, which makes the 16610 look very special and unique Rolex.

For me this is an outrageous flaw and it completely ruins this watch, and I don't understand how people can overlook it.

Not in my dreams. Just stumbled across when googling images for a CG mod I plan to make. I thought images are of a gen as well

Dean

This is a picture of a rep dial though. Just look at the sloppy printing, wrong font and uneven lettering. I'm sure the guy mixes up rep and gen pics there. A typical scammer selling bad reps. Net is full of lowlifes like this.

Looks like combination of gen and rep pics. Stay away from this seller.

And even if he WAS legit, why would you want to buy a watch from a such seller? Price 550€, you gotta be kidding me!

@stephane: I wouldn't say "everything is wrong" with it. It's the first time when we see a halfway proper case and HE valve on 16600. It's probably really nice watch, I just think it didn't live up to all that hype.

It's a decent rep, but after all 1:1 claims and "modeled after the gen" it was a disappointment. Well, at least for me. Perhaps I'm too anal, but it would have been nice to finally see something extraodinary. The rehaut shape simply looks wrong, and this very characteristic look was the most important thing to get right (imho).

I hate to be a party pooper, but I simply fail to see what's so special with this rep.

The most serious flaw is the crystal/rehaut profile, which looks nothing like the gen, and the watch has the ugliest pearl and crown guards I've seen in a long time. This is can be spotted as a rep in 2 seconds, if you know SeaDweller. Maybe it's just me, but personally I think the "tells" are more than obvious.

Yes, it's the best modern SD so far, but overall I don't think it's anything extraordinary.