By-Tor

@Hike: Nice Omega.

@Hackr: Me too.

Thank you By Tor for such a comprehensive review of the TT replica Sub. By he way, excuse my ignorance, but why calling this particular piece a "noobmariner" I believed "noobie" watch stood for first cheap replica for the beginners, but your review claims this is the best or among the best replicas of the Rolex classic Sub.

Thank you again fo your insightful article.

Alter

"Noobmariner" was a cheap replica which was an exception to the rule. Usually the price dictates how accurate rep you're going to get, but in Noobmariner's case it did not. TTK and other dealers sold the stainless steel Noob with Asian movement for $99 back in its day.

You can read my 2006 review of the original Noobmariner here. LINK. Today I'm a bit ashamed of those low quality photos though.

It was extremely good replica, and still is. Not only "for the money" but generally too. But they are known to have some occasional QC issues like crooked cyclops, bad bracelets, that's why it's important that you buy from a dealer that checks the watch before shipping it.

The factory that produced it, also produced some very good other Rolex reps too (ExpII, GMT 16710, GMT ceramic, seconds at 6 Daytona, Noob YM, etc.) Some of these watches weren't cheap, like the better version of the 16613 (the watch in this review). bklm1234 started to use the term "Noob factory" because these good reps all came from the same factory (factory that produced the original Noobmariner). That's where the name comes from.

Only WM9 has produced better quality modern Rolex reps, and those seem to be long gone.

You guys always forget that I reviewed this watch long time ago.

Back then it was called WM9 v1. It was the first "Super Sub".

LINK.

@Dave:

Um, you've linked to a hockey site.

Damn... how did that come there. That mod is a great hockey video game btw... love it!!!

Good that I didn't link to my usual pr0n & warez sites.

Great collection of watches, though. Enviable.

Thanks man. Appreciated.

Excellent pics, excellent purchase.

You got it for a good price!

This a a gen 45.5.

Yes, sorry. I linked wrong picture. This is 42mm.

Here's a gen 42mm for comparison.

Great watches, great shots guys!

I'm wearing my B01.

Are you using a light box? Because without a light box it's going to be very difficult.

The dial and crystal are reflecting everything what there is to reflect. Looks like the Omega dial is reflecting light from a window or something.

i.e you have to block it off. You don't need any camera tricks. Camera is probably 3% of the overall watch photo quality. 97% is lighting. No tricks are needed. Just the sharpening (macro/flower) option and click.

Try shooting that watch in a lightbox in a dark room so that the watch face is facing the darkness. Simultaneously use three or four lights: one on top, one on the left & right (so that both these lights are directed at the dial, angled) and one on the back. That light is filtered through the lightbox walls (which should be white and transparent).

I don't recommend using any "black reflector cards". They simply kill the dial details, reduce lighting and create noise.

You can also play with the light reflections (left & right lamps). These photos have the lamps reflected to the dial more directly (on purpose, to bring up dial characteristics).

Isn't the case, bracelet and bezel finish pretty damn good?

The bracelet is light and very Rolex-like though. But that is probably intentional from TH (to keep the overall weight down). It's a diver chrono after all...

Nonsense, you guys!

Please post... It's always fun to look back and see where the addiction started! And to see what it's become!

Unfortunately I don't have photos of my earliest Rolex reps anymore, but here are some that I've owned in the past.

LINK.

That's RWG history. The best franken-Rolex collection ever + the gen 1675 of course. All watches are top class.

I don't even bother to post my past watches as they're not in the same level with yours.

The GMT doesn't even have cyclops. The date Sub has mag & date way too right + very bad dial print.

What's that Tiffany no-date version?

They're ok if they cost $40 or $50. But not even close to accurate.

Great purchase Mickey!

I absolutely love this case & size. Will never part with my gen Aquaracer chrono. Simply amazing!

I was always under the impression that gen GMT II (16710) and Explorer II have same cases too. Same case, same function (save the rotating bezel on the 16710).

So it's only logical that good replicas follow this trend too.

And you can determine this ...how ?

Just like WM9 Sub and YM, the Noob ExpII has gen-like crystal construction, and very noticeable "crystal ring thickness" when you look it from the front view. The crystal construction and rehaut on the one you posted looks absolutely terrible and wokky.

How can you not notice it... it's completely different on the Noob. Very gen-like. The cheap typical crap that most dealers offer don't come even close.

That's a beauty Freddy. I'm also wearing my GMT today.

Not.

It's not a bad Explorer but it's not the Noob. The rehaut and case aren't as good.

Hey By-Tor

did you change your lineup for 2011?

Did you ever get a chance to get the new uPO 42mm that recently came out?

Happy late new year

Hi,

I only bought the new Breitling B01 after this pictorial and it was my last replica watch review (for now).

And no, I haven't got the new uPO 42mm, and I doubt I even will. Having 6-7 watches is ideal for me.

I traded my Ebel BTR, and I really miss that replica. If I ever buy another replica watch, it will be that one.

Thanks for the interest man.

WM9 v2 was the last 16610 I had to buy. And I've owned many.

The black Noob Explorer II is (or actually WAS) simply amazing replica.

Too bad it's not produced any more.

I bought that watch back in 2006 and wrote a small review of it:

LINK.

I never found a match for the brushed bezel, either. But does it really matter? I mean, who would ever know?

@Freddy: Your picture is much nicer.

When you shoot a watch that has both polished and brushed surfaces, it requires special lighting to bring up the details. You have to do some Photoshopping to "finalize" the pic. But there's a fine line between "fake" and "adjusted", and that guy crossed the line. And he overlit the watch ridiculously. Where were all the details of the bracelet, dial and bezel? It was completely lifeless and fake photo. I don't like the idea of completely faking the background, either.

You can "smoothen" the brushed surfaces with lighting...

...or bring them up.

Fish today.