By-Tor

I have read about this watch and it's really, really nice and dressy. Congrats, it's quite a gift!

Why sorry? Keep the comments coming, this is all good discussion. I wish all my reviews sparked so much interest. I try to point out the inaccuracies for the members because they're so important to some. Personally, I almost find the small flaws and inaccuracies fascinating... rather than annoying. Of course it's nice to get better and more accurate replicas... but for me the it's not the issue whether "someone would call me out or not"... I just get a kick out of it (often with the other members). It's part of the fun in this hobby. To be honest I'm not very anal about the flaws on my replicas... hell my favourite replica is the hybrid Speedmaster BA. It's a great looking watch and it's one of the few watches I own that actually do receive positive comments. Everyone looks at it on awe when they see the quality feel and transparent glass back showing the movement. I haven't met even one single person who would question its authenticity. I would actually LOVE to meet such person... and discuss all the painstaking details on the Broad Arrow. But that haven't even crossed anyone's mind. I wonder if people seriously think that they'll meet someone who points out to your watch and says "Gee... your Speedmaster must be a fake, there's no datewheel". What do you think the odds are? 1 in 14 million? Unfortunately people don't (generally) pay much attention to watches. I buy the watches for my personal enjoyement. I could wear a complete fantasy watch if it looked great and possessed a quality feel. I understand that people are more anal about Rolex because everyone thinks they're all fakes. Even us. If you buy the gen because you don't have to worry about "getting called out" you'll probably notice that nobody will give a shit about some ridiculous microscopic details anyway. Eunomians was wearing his expensive vintage Rolex in a hockey (or football game) and some other spectator said "Your Rolex is a fake, it has a plastic glass". I've been lurking in the gen forums and I know they'd spot this watch as a fake. But even the gen forums HAVE ONLY A FEW guys who could do it from the bloated, zoomed pictures... and I suspect these same people are lurking here and are closet rep buyers (or at least they follow closely what's happening). Some braindead turkey posted pics of his 4th Gen PO six months ago to a gen forum and there was only one guy who spotted it... the rest of the guys couldn't believe it was a rep. I'm 99% sure the guy who burnt him reads this forum. When I look at the old Sub that was "the best" 18 months ago (picture in the review) I must say it looks like a toy watch compared to the Noobmariner (when it comes to visual accuracy). And even that was already very good. The way reps have improved during the last 12 months alone is amazing. Sometimes I wonder if people have even realized that. PS Randy: I completely understand your passion to get more accurate watch and build it yourself. You're doing it for your enjoyement... to please YOURSELF mainly. That's what the watch collecting (or any hobby) should be all about.

Welcome James. Glad to have another "Omega Man" onboard!

Welcome! Your Sub is not a bad rep. Looks like the old "TW case Sub" to me. A classic rep! The biggest flaws are the crown guards, m and M alignment on the dial and a bit overraised hour markers. If you're not obsessed about Submariner I'd just enjoy the rep, it's a decent one.

This is actually my first replica. It's from the late eighties from Thailand. A DateJust quartz. Brass bracelet and gold plating that rubbed away against your shirt. Here's the first shot (as you can see the hologram is still intact): Marvellous quartz movement. I never bought another battery for this gem, it was embarrassing already in the eighties (when I was a kid): The dial: This is my first good replica (from Joshua). A good ole' TT Sub. I still like this model. The rep is really nice but this is not kinda watch that you can replicate properly (at least up to the standards that we are accustomed to). So I traded it.

That's crap. All automatic movements tick more or less. If they were a "highly trained investigator" he would have said "No ticks, the watch has stopped". The guy must have been dead at least 48 hours because the power reserve ran out.

Cool pic indeed. Is that a Pepsi model or did the black bezel turn radioactive?

Nope. This pearl was on one of the replacement inserts that Kenzo sent me (he sent them along with the WM Tudor I purchased... for no particular reason... just for fun). It was actually attached on a RED Submariner insert... what a waste.... The pearl on that was much better than any rep Submariner inserts I've seen so I recycled it. As you can see the red one now has the Noobmariner pearl attached. You need a red, silver or green insert? (the other inserts have lousy pearls though) It looks excellent on the wrist... couldn't tell the difference to the gen pearl without zoomed pics.

No fair Randy... you have the best Sub. Enough of the "rehaut debate". You could comment this pearl instead. Is it any better? Sorry about the garbage pics though. Let's just say I didn't really care how they turned out.

@Chief: I agree, you're obsessed. But of course you're right...there IS a small difference in the height of the "inner rehaut ring". But I think it's safe to say that it's not any shallower than the TW case is deeper. The claim that the difference is "huge" is pretty wild. And once again: most of the visual effect comes from the differently placed crystal which sits too low. I'd imagine it's even more noticeable on the SeaDweller due to thicker glass. If members prefer the deeper (equally inaccurate) case that's a different story. I suspect you obsess over this particular detail because everyone here keeps talking about it. You didn't see these "rehaut discussions" before someone "invented" the flaw. It was totally fu**ed up on the old reps though. Is this angle better? (sorry about the lousy rep pic...didn't have enough light)

I think they're BOTH reps that you need to own. I have both and they're definitely keepers. My TAG with 7750 is keeping time within the COSC standards (and better) after 2+ months of use. It's not long time but at least it's something. And you're right... TAG has excellent reputation among non-WIS people... and Omega is the favourite brand among almost all WIS. Just go to the gen forums and see. Everyone looks TAG down their noses but love and respect Omega. Why? That's a long story, and difficult to answer. It's somewhat unjustified because TAG has some great models... but that's just how it is. For me it would be depressing to be without either one.

I'm wearing the Noobmariner... naturally I'm still on a honeymoon with it. I had 4 days vacation... spent too much time here but I'm going to a quick business trip today. Will probably switch to the Speedy: Have a great weekend!

"Not good as others"... bs... those look just as good as anyone's work. Congrats!!! Shaping them is not difficult at all. You just need some patience... just do it!

I love the design of the Submariner... the case, lines and appearance... but I bought a Tudor because I don't like wearing a Rolex (gen or rep). This one was a gift, remember? I understand why people buy Rolex reps... no problem with that. I even understand the WIS who love the brand and feel pride of their genuine Rolexes for the right reasons. Perhaps I used a wrong terminolgy... you're right... I DO understand the rednecks who buy the bling models just to "show off"... but I don't have to like them. I dunno what category my father falls... probably a bit to both. I love the old man though. I love this quote by Ziggy: Remember the fellow who was so proud that he was able to kiss the local AD's ass and get moved up to #2 on the list for a Daytona, and how everyone was cheering him on and offering suggestions to kiss more ass "Bring a bottle of wine to the Manager for his wife..." "Drop by once a week and chat the manager up..." ad nauseum...Bleach! And that Mercedes comparison isn't valid. Mercedes E is about 25% - 30% more expensive than the "next class" (Volvo S80)... and it's light years better car to drive (handling, quality feel). It's not just "branding", there IS a difference. The price difference is even smaller when you put it next to the nearest competition (Audi, BMW, Jaguar). But Rolex has about %200 (or even %300) price difference to its nearest competition which in my eyes is Omega and perhaps Breitling. THAT is poor value for money, whether "you're fulfilling your dream and buying the image" or not. In the end of the day it's just a watch. Rolex has also tarnished its reputation (in my eyes) with the disgusting bling models they're selling to the superrich. Most of their new bling models are best suited for utterly TASTELESS 60+ transvestites (saw the pics from the Basel show... all new models were like this). Of course you can ruin anything if you have too much money and no class... even Mercedes. But at least Mercedes isn't doing this on the factory production line. @Tribal: Thanks for the clarification.

That was my original point, exactly... I thought that was easy to read "between the lines" from the review. However... I made jokes about the "Trekkie bastards" obsessing over the miniscule details but on the other hand it's also part of the fun and enjoyement... as long as people don't take it too seriously. "It's a 100$ watch that just keeps time and has the letters on the dial"... that's true as well... but it's quite fascinating at that... it has a $4900 price difference to the "other one" that keeps time and has the same magical letters. I just don't understand people (including my dad) who have spent so much money on genuine Rolexes... especially now after the humongous price increase. Rolex is probably the worst value-for-money watch brand in the world... and many dumbasses buy them because they're desperate to prove they're rich and successful. Look at it anyway you want... at $100 I find this watch utterly HILARIOUS... and a nice buy even though you're not a Rolex fan. Like Bill says: "just to piss off Uncle Rollie". Like I said the Chinese are takin' over.

You're correct... I know it has different case. The cg's are straight and have no curvature at all (as the picture tells). I shaped my no-date Tudor cg's based on the 5513 and the current no-date model. Straight'n'spiky. Once again... I'm not saying you're wrong. I just doubt there's any difference in case depth.

You mean the no-dates have different case depth? This is news to me. Is it a known fact... or just a guess? If there is a difference I definitely need glasses.

@chieftang: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I disagree with you... and I don't find it a big issue. Not as big deal as bad dial, wrong cg's... or wrong cyclops/datewheel placement... flaws that are the usual tell-tales. My father has a genuine no-date Sub but he's living in another country. I'd love to make a side-by-side comparison tho'. Say what you want but I find the "Noobmariner" case depth and inner "ring smoothness" very reasonable... not perfect but much better than on the old CN Subs. It's mainly the crystal height and placement that makes the difference... or then I'm blind as a bat. The non-genuine pearl is much, much bigger flaw in my eyes. PS: If you put this rep next to the gen you sure took some pictures, right? Would be interesting to see that "huge" difference... if the reference pics that I posted were all "deceiving". One more (deceiving) shot:

@dcrooz: Someone posted another way to do it: Heat the bezel with a hairdryer until the glue softens... and just turn it to the correct position. It's worth the shot.

Ahh... I'm well aware that the rehaut is not as deep. There's a difference... just as I wrote. But "very thin" compared to the gen? I don't agree... I think the bigger difference is the crystal... which sits too low on almost all Sub reps... which makes the case depth appear lower. I just wrote what I see... don't take my word as a gospel. I personally don't find it much of an issue. In my eyes the TW case is just as much "too deep" as this is "too shallow". PS: I made fun of the "Sub trekkies" tongue-in-cheek... and didn't count myself out of the ship. Someone finds a flaw and then the whole community obsesses over it for the next 24 months... until it goes a bit overboard. You think 0.1mm isn't enough? How much (in millimeters) you'd think the actual difference is (considering the depth is 2mm on the genuine)? See for yourself: Noobmariner: Gen 1: Gen 2: Gen 3: Gen 4: Noobmariner and gen:

Thanks Baltic, a classic post! This goes linked straight to the Omega Guide now. PS: I always said the rep is great. You can't do anything to the subdial spacing issue so members' complaining about it is kinda useless. You either live with those or buy the gen (same thing with other Speedmasters... and the new PO Chrono).

That made my day... thanks!!! PS: Come back Dave Seaman... all is forgiven!!!

I'm not that familiar with Railmaster but at 49mm it's one hell of a monster! Glad to know this new is a good one too. Generally, these new generation reps are almost too good to be true. Uncle Rollie, Cousin Omega and Aunt Panerai are probably making notes as well.

Thanks guys. Funny... good question. I didn't even think about the glass. I went to Neil's sales thread and he describes it "synthetic sapphire". The crystal looks and feels exactly similar as on the other reps I've had (that have genuine sapphire glass)... and much smoother on the surface than my MBW and Seamaster plastic glasses. Is there an easy way to tell? The timekeeping is probably something that you'd except: In the +/- 15 range (haven't measured it though). I can do it if you absolutely need to know. I'm not anal about the accuracy but it hasn't lost a minute in 24 hours... that much I can tell.

Without Becks England isn't competitive. Becks is much greater player than Maradona, Pele, Cruyff and Zidane combined. Seriously, they could probably still use him. I recall he scored some important free kick goals in the World Cup as well.