TeeJay

Thanks, bro, you're quite right, at the end of the day, the hobby is all about fun, and I have to admit, modifying this watch is probably the most fun I've had with a watch for quite a while I know it's not perfect, but for the price, I wasn't expecting it to be a Super Rep I'm certainly going to enjoy it for as long as I can while I evaluate it's performance, I guess I'll just have to try hard to win the stag contest so I get to keep it and if I don't win, well, I'll just have to buy myself another one

I'm not sure how free floating the GMT Master II bezel is, although I know the GMTIIC bezel has 'soft clicks'. The bezel on this watch rotates in the same manner as a submariner, with absolutely no play in it at all. When it clicks into place, it is solidly in place until being clicked further forwards With regards the clasp, externally, it looked fine, it was simply the lettering in the internal leaves which was gibberish. Externally, it looked fine, that's why I saidthat someone might be able to ignore it, as chances are they wouldn't actually check that detail often I simply replaced the parts so that the new owner wouldn't have to explain any incorrect spellings

Anything with Rolex on the dial (which friends notice as being new) is going to get the question "Is that real?" That's not because they think that you personally are wearing a rep, but because everyone knows how copied Rolexes are, so it's more a case of curiosity as to if it's a real one or not, rather than any intention to call someone out. To be honest, you are unlikely to ever hear anyone ask, and if they do (and it's clear they're trying to call you out) then it's just a sign of their lack of class. I think the key thing, is if you would say that the watch was a replica, or if you would try and pass it off as being genuine... Welcome to the party

I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprized. Okay, sure, some of the things, like the caseback, clasp leaves etc, weren't great quality (but for that price who's complaining...) but they were easily modifiable, so an acceptable watch for someone either getting into reps, or looking for a 'fixer-upper'

Yup, 20 plus a fiver for postage The question now, is do I only wear it long enough to 'evaluate' it, or do I substitute something else as the prize and keep it for myself You're not mistaken No brand-name colas for me, I like the generic That said, Sainsbury's .18p Econocola tastes like dishwater

Thanks for the feedback, amigos, it's much appreciated I think the key thing to remember with this watch, is 'budget pricing'. If it had cost $108, I think people would have been frustrated by the spelling errors, and possibly even sent it back. I'm not sure if I would have sent it back, but I think I would have been disappointed (but not too much to prevent me wearing the watch, or modding it ) but for

Okay, this is going to be slightly different to my usual reviews. I'm not actually going to be grading this watch in any way, simply making some observations and showing a few photos of it. I'm sure folks are more than familiar with my bastardized GMTSub, and how, once I put it on a bracelet rather than a strap, it was my beater until I murdered the movement through nothing more than impatience and sloppiness. Fear not, there will indeed by a V2.0. Faster, better, and stronger than ever (well, not necessarily faster, but hopefully better, insha'allah ) From that, you would be safe to assume that I really like Rolex watches with a GMT function. I used a Panerai 029a with GMT on vacation in Spain last year, and, it was actually pretty cool to know the time at home (even though it was only an hour different ) and I actually like the Rolex GMT even more. For anyone who travels or needs to track a second timezone for any reason, a GMT is a must for your collection. I never intended to buy this specific watch for my collection, but rather as a prize for my best friend's stag do in May. I'm not sure yet what we're going to be doing, darts, karting, batting cage etc, but, I said that if we do something competitive, I'd provide a prize, and, given how many of my friend's friends travel, I figured they would benefit from the GMT function, so I thought this would be an ideal fun gift (and not expensive for me to provide). I've always stayed away from the bi-colored GMTs in the past, thinking that the all black insert, being closest to a Submariner, would look the best for when the bezel is set to a different timezone, ie, the 'level' of the colors would not change, just the position of the numbers, where on the bi-colored inserts, once set to another timezone, the 'level' is altered. I didn't think I would actually like how that looked, but, now that the watch is actually in my hands, I actually really like it. My reference material for this, was By-Tor's excellent review, as that showed me some things to look out for, as well as providing first rate photos to compare the watch to. This watch was purchased very cheaply, and, although out of the box, it had some flaws which folks might not be prepared to accept, it immediately struck me as a very nice watch. The bezel has nice sharp teeth, and ratchets cleanly and solidly, with no sloppiness or 'wobble'. This really is a case of 'locking in' the timezone The crown is well marked, and easy to operate, with a very positive action with the movement. No 'slack' on the operation at all. On the far side of the case, is an etched coronet. I know this is a tell, but it would certainly not be difficult to buff this out, or even simply ignore. The caseback is a bit of a dog's dinner... The sticker is a mess, and the etchings have an incorrect spelling (as well as this being the wrong caseback for this model watch ) The gasget was actually badly crimped, so that had to be replaced. A little frustrating, but not a problem. The bracelet was actually not too bad, but the leaves had gibberish stamped on them, and the leaves of the diver's extension would not lock closed. Something someone might be able to ignore, or modify. I don't think people would accept such a level of detail from a 'trusted dealer', but, given this did not cost as much, it is certainly acceptable for the price paid, especially if modifications are planned. The watch has a Maxi Dial, but only regular size hands... Still, not bad. The lume of the hands and markers is a good match, and quite a strong glow. The dial markings themselves are all clean, correctly spelled, and evenly printed. Of course, to an expert, this kind of rep could never pass for gen, but, to the average Joe Sixpack, it does not scream 'fake' due to any spelling errors or other poor presentation. As mentioned above, this watch is to be a prize, rather than an addition to my collection (unless I win it ) and the spelling flaws are the kind of thing which a non-collector would likely be put off by, and could lead to embarassment, so I figured it was in the best interests to modify the watch. First to be replaced, was the caseback. I'm not sure if this is the correct back for this model, but, it's sterile, so at least it has no spelling errors which could draw unwanted attention... To correct the issue of the incorrect spellings on the clasp leaves (and because the diver's extension would not lock) I replaced the entire bracelet. Again, probably not accurate for this model, but, at least these parts are functional, and have correct spellings... I also reset the insert position so it was 100% in line with the dial markings when the bezel was locked. This was the end result: Overall, I am very pleased with the quality of this watch. It was certainly good value for money As for price, this was

Not precisely. Those are clones, rather than reps. Personally, I don't like clones, as the makers slap their own label on them, but really only change enough to prevent legal action. At least reps are (in theory ) accurate and true to the original. To me, at least, reps are reproductions, clones are plagiarism. That said, if someone likes it and wants to wear it, then that's up to them, although to be honest, if I was ever asked "Is that a fake?" I'd rather just say "Yes it is" rather than "No!!! It's a totally different brand!!! It just looks exactly like a Rolex except for the logo!" etc etc

This isn't mine, I ordered it as a prize for my best friend's stag do, but it needs to be 'tested and observed' before then to make sure it runs clean I will be reviewing it as well

> Can an off-centered dial be centered? Yes. > Cost to center? That depends. If you're paying a watchsmith to do it... If they have a standard fee, you're looking at that at least. It would be much quicker and easier and cheaper to do it yourself... All you need to do is remove the movement from the watch, tweak the dial into the proper position, then replace it in the case. If the dial is off-center because the dial feet are in the wrong place (and you can't 'tweak it' by hand) then you'd need to remove the hands, remove the dial, snap off the dial feet, then place a couple of very small tags of double-sided tape about 2mm x 2mm) in the center of the movement (not touching the datewheel) then position the dial in place over the movement, and press it down onto the tape. Then just replace the hands, and put it back in the case Simple as that, and really not worth paying someone else to do Best of luck

Thanks, it arrived last week It's nothing special, but I've really gotten used to the look of a 'silver', rather than black Rolex, and, best of all, it was only

Still the same for me

I see what you mean about the subdial positioning, but I guess that's the payoff one must mentally balance: Do the flaws make the watch unwearable? Am I prepared to accept the flaws given the price, or do I pay more for a more accurate replication? I've had my eye on the Ebel 1911 Discovery for a while now, but the Swiss option was an impossibility due to financial commitments, and when I looked atthe quartz version, the subdial spacing really bugged me, but, when someone posted a wristshot of the quartz version, it actually looked much nicer than the website photos, and is now a watch I might consider getting when my finances allow. It really all comes down to the balance I mentioned above, and if one is prepared to accept certain flaws due to the price, or if it's worth paying the extra to eliminate those flaws... That's something someone can only answer for themself. It's like with my Canal st Yacht-Master. I have not yet received one comment on the watch, so I can only believe people are operating on the principle of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything.", and I totally accept that, as I know it's nothing special. Even my wife said it "looks like a Casio knockoff..." but, the important thing, is that I'm happy with it It's all a matter of personal preferences and requirements

Yes, although communications are now handled by Sarah (might be Tony's assistant or business partner, I really don't know)

I have to admit, I didn't know that there was a new version of the movement which accomodated the seconds at six function, so that in itself is interesting to find out My one question about such a movement, would be if the 9 and 3 sub dials still performed the day/month functions, or if they were workng chrono dials... I have to admit, I'd personally be more tempted to go for the quartz option to get the full functionality, rather than just a 'cosmetic' option, which Is all a modified movement might be. I guess at the end of the day, it comes down to if you'd acultually need to use that function or not... As for watcheden as dealers, I can only say that they are trusted dealers on RWI, and apprenticing here. I have bought the majority of my watches from them, and always had excellent transactions. The only reason I sourced my Yacht-Master from a different dealer, was because I could only afford to pay the canal st price, and watcheden were unable to price match, and to be fair to that dealer (who I will name publicly when I receive a GMT I ordered as a stag prize) I received exactly what I was promised, and in a shorter time than I expected

The answer is right there in the sales description: day/month/military time. '9' counts one through seven, '3' counts upto thirty one, and '6' does a 24 hour sweep. I've had one for a few years, and it's been good as gold, although I recently gave it to my wife. Another option might be the quartz movement, the quartz movement in my 187-wannabe ran seconds at six... As for the dealer, I'd highly recommend them Best of luck

Nice collection

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it I do agree with you about the crowns, my only gripe is that they could be a little bigger, but never mind It wouldn't affect the overall result as a winning/losing scenario. I was just so surprised by the draw

I have to admit, I wouldn't be so sure... In a way, I can see how it should encourage people to go and see it on the big screen, the same as someone buying a rep, then getting the gen, or, downloading a track, and then buying that artist's CDs, however, sometimes, people don't actually like going to the cinema, and prefer to watch a movie at home (for various reasons) so for folks like that, they are the same 'lost revenue' that gen manufacturers like to claim as being lost, when in fact, they would never have actually brought the gen watch, or, in this case, go to the cinema That said, I can see the point of the artists. I was reading John Barrowman's autobiography, and at one point, he says about how angry it makes theatre actors to be photographed on stage during a performance, and likened it to someone stealing sweets from the supermarket during a regular shopping trip: They paid for 'the majority' of the goods, but it doesn't entitle them to take a few freebies as well... I'd never considered that opinion before, but it certainly makes sense, and, from the comments which Hugh Jackman made, I can understand his disappointment, not so much for the loss of revenue, but simply because the film would not be seen in it's best possible light. Now, that's not to say that I never watch pirated DVD , but I can appreciate what he was meaning

Fantastic

Looks pretty good Thanks for the extra photos

I'm really looking forwards to seeing this movie I've read that Hugh Jackman was very upset that the working version has been released, as people aren't seeing it in it's fully completed form, and he said that it would be like seeing a Ferrari without a paint job...

Damn, talk about an unfortunate series of events Hard to believe that companies can be allowed to get away with that. I'd've thought that if you could have proven that the package was damaged and the contents 'missing' (which Fedex weren't denying, they were just refusing to pay out) then surely paypal should have accepted that it was circumstances beyond your control... Damn. That's a bitch about the GMTIIc deal as well You might as well go for the 'call girls and vodka' plan

It's been a while since my last review, and I felt a prime subject had come up from a recent purchase. Due to my lack of quality pictures of either watches, this will be a solely written review, but, I'm sure we all know what these watches look like About my review: In writing this review, I am going to follow the style of a review which ultimately led to my interest in Omega watches, and ultimately reps, John B. Holbrook, II's excellent comparitive review, Omega Seamster Professional Vs Rolex Submariner. I am going to be judging the watches as objectively, and honestly as possible, giving justifications for my reasonings as I go. These scores are purely based upon my own observations and opinions about the watch, people are free to agree or disagree as they wish. A note about my 'scoring system': I will be scoring on a scale of 0 - 10, with 5 being the mid-way score. A score of 5, would mean that the 'aspect' performs its intended function. And no more. A score of five, in academic terms, would be considered 'a pass', but the lowest possible pass, and single lower mark would have meant a failing grade. Respectively, a 0 reflects a total failure to perform the designated role, and a 10 represents a performance of the designated role which goes 'above and beyond', and could not possibly be better. The watches I am reviewing and comparing, are, as mentioned above, the Rolex Submariner, and Rolex Yacht-Master. Similar, but different. I wouldn't go so far as to call these watches 'Night and Day', rather negative reflections of the other. So, let's get started... CASE: Both watches feature the classic Rolex Oyster case, and are definitely 'functional sports watches', as opposed to an elegant 'dress watch', such as the DateJust. However, the two cases are not identical. The case of the Yacht-Master is entirely polished, and has much more rounded edges and sides, compared to the more angular Submariner. Personally, I feel that this gives the Submariner a more 'utilitarian' feel and the Yacht-Master a more elegant feel. Both watch cases have crown guards to protect the crown, but, unlike the crown guards of the Omega Planet Ocean, these guards are not integrated into the line of the case. RATING: Submariner: 7 Yacht-Master: 8 I am giving the Yacht-Master the higher score, because of the additional work in the finish (rounded edges) which give the watch a more tactile quality. BEZEL: Similar, but different. Both watches feature a notched bezel, which is easy to grasp and rotate, however, where the Submariner bezel is uni-directional, the Yacht-Master bezel is bi-directional. A uni-directional bezel is certainly safer for timing calculations, as the period can only decrease. The bezel inserts of these watches are very different. The Submariner insert is 2 Dimensional, where the Yacht-Master insert is 3 Dimensional. This does not make any difference to the functionality of the bezels, it is simply an aesthetic observation. However, the Submariner insert features a luminous pearl, which the Yacht-Master does not, which means the Submariner bezel can be used to measure or indicate a certain time in darkness, which the Yacht-Master bezel cannot. RATING: Functionality: Submariner: 8 Yacht-Master: 6 Aesthetic Appearance: Submariner: 6 Yacht-Master: 9 Overall Average: Submariner: 7 Yacht-Master: 8 In terms of pure functionality, the Submariner bezel would be a hands-down winner, but, when aesthetics are brought into play, the 3 Dimensional aspect of the Yacht-Master cannot be ignored. I would also point out, that the 3 Dimensional aspect cannot truly be appreciated solely from a photograph, as, although the contrast between brushed and polished surfaces is obvious, the tactile quality adds a level of appreciation which many other diver's watches simply do not have. CASEBACK: Identical casebacks on both watches. They are functional, and that is all they need to be. As Rolex do not decorate their movements, there is no aesthetic gain from a display back. RATING: Submariner: 9 Yacht-Master: 9 Normally, I would rate a solid caseback lower, but, as the movements inside are not decorated, there would be no gain to seeing them, thus, there can be no loss by not seeing them. CROWN: Both watches feature the same Trip-Lock crown. They are identical in appearance and operation. Rolex crowns are easy to operate. RATING: Submariner: 10 Yacht-Master: 10 DIAL: Both dials follow a similar pattern, featuring clear, luminous indices and date-windows. While one might say that the choice in dial color is simply a matter of personal preference (light or dark), there are actually functional differences as well. The Yacht-Master features the Maxi-Dial, which allows for greater visibility than the Submariner dial. One difference, is that the Yacht-Master does not feature a depth-rating. RATING: Submariner: 7 Yacht-Master: 9 I have scored the Yacht-Master higher, as I feel the dial exceeds the Submariner in two instances: One, being the texture of the dial. It is visually more interesting than the texture of the Submariner dial. The second instance, I shall expand upon below... HANDS & MARKERS: As mentioned above, the Yacht-Master features the Maxi Dial, which means it has larger indices and hands than as on the Submariner. Quite simply, that translates to better visibility. While there are indeed now variants of the Submariner which feature the Maxi-Dial, the 'bog standard' 16610 does not feature it, and that is what I am basing this review on. RATING: Submariner: 7 Yacht-Master: 9 I have not rated the Yacht-Master as 10, simply because there are other dive watches, such as the Omega Planet Ocean, which feature dial markers and hands, which are even larger and easier to read. While that does not detract from the level of the Yacht-Master over the Submariner, one should be mindful that there are still better hands/markers available. I believe the best result someone could get with Rolex parts, would be a Maxi-Dial, coupled with the military sword hands of the 5517-model Submariner. That combination would still not be as good as the Planet Ocean markers, but as good as it gets for Rolex... CRYSTAL: Identical crystals. Both feature magnifying cyclops' over the date-window. Personally, I don't like them, as I feel they spoil the line of the crystal, compared to other watch brands which feature a cyclops on the underside of the crystal, such as Panerai and Ulysse Nardin. Yes, the 'exterior cyclops' is iconically 'Rolex', and has helped me identify a Rolex from TV, when no clear dial shots have been provided (the Air-King with date window worn by John Barrowman in his portrayal of Captain Jack Harkness) but, that still does not excuse the fact that the finish of the watch could be improved by using an internal cyclops (which would also provide increased magnification, by being closer to the date font) Seeing the travesties Rolex released at Basel, I can't see them deciding to improve the appearance of their crystals with such a simple alteration. Rating: Submariner: 7 Yacht-Master: 5 I am giving the Yacht-Master a lower score, despite the identical crystals, because although neither watch crystal is AR coated, on the Yacht-Master, this really is a missed opportunity on Rolex's part, as it would allow for better visibility of the textured dial, which, would not only allow for a better appreciation, but also make it more obvious that the dial actually is textured, rather than simply being matte. On the Submariner, the crystal is simply a case of 'could be better', but not actually hampering the dial. On the Yacht-Master, it prevents an attractive aspect of the watch from being more visible, so in my mind, it then becomes a design flaw, because it does not take other factors of the watch into account, and causes obstruction, rather than enhancement. BRACELET: Both watches feature the same bracelet. The mid-links of the Yacht-Master bracelet, however, are polished, and the end-links of the bracelet protrude beyond the case-lugs, and while some might like this feature, personally, I feel it makes the end-links appear mis-matched to the case size, and as with the above issue of the crystal, I feel this detracts from the overall appearance of the watch. Regardless of the finish of the links or the appearance of the watch, both bracelets are comfortable to wear. RATING: Submariner: 8 Yacht-Master: 7 CLASP: The clasp is often cited as the weakest aspect of the Oyster bracelet, and many feel that it is too 'flimsy and cheap' to feature on a premium watch. I used to agree with this opinion, until it was pointed out to me, that the Submariner was not originally intended as a prestige product, but a functional, professional tool watch, and compared to a stripped down racing car, rather than a comfortable family saloon, in terms of build. In my opinion, that viewpoint certainly makes the clasp more tolerable, although I am still of the opinion that there are better engineered clasps on the market, as used by Omega and Ulysse Nardin, for example. Also, Rolex have recently made upgrades to their clasps, as with the Rolesor bracelet, and the Glide-lock clasp, as featured on the Deep Sea Sea Dweller, which at least shows Rolex have decided to actually make a change, rather than keep churning out the same product. RATING: Submariner: 5 Yacht-Master: 4 I have rated the Submariner higher in this aspect, because the clasp features a diver's extension. Some might argue that a Yacht-Master is not a diver's watch, so why should it require a diver's extension? Well, I would point out that the Explorer II is a caving watch, and that also does not feature a diver's extension, despite the fact that it would be useful to enable the watch to be worn over gloves or an insulated jacket. I would make the same point in the Yacht-Master's case: Just because it is not intended as a diving watch, it does not mean that the watch could not benefit from the diver's extension, and indeed, there are many situations on a yacht when the wearer might want to wear the watch over their gloves or jacket, but be unable to. Again, I view this as a design flaw, as it does not take into account potential requirements when the watch is worn and provide for those potential requirements. Afterall, even if it is not a diver's watch, the Yacht-Master (and the Explorer II) is still a sports watch, and would be expected to be able to be used in sports situations, rather than simply looking good in the yacht club's bar... VERSATILITY: Both watches are relatively versatile, and it is not uncommon to see people wearing a Submariner with a suit. The polished case, mid-links and 3 Dimensional bezel insert of the Yacht-Master certainly make it the more 'dressy' of the two watches, and I think it would be safest to say that the Yacht-Master 'dresses down' better than the Submariner 'dresses up', however, that itself is not true versatility, as it is not an adaptation to all scenarios. RATING: Submariner: 9 Yacht-Master: 7 I have rated the Submariner higher in this aspect, because the watch looks equally good on a rubber or leather strap as it does on it's SS bracelet. The Yacht-Master does not look good on straps at all, only on bracelets, so it is simply not as versatile as the Submariner. While the Yacht-Master could be considered a more 'universal' watch, as it does look good with a variety of wardrobe options, it's inability to blend with a strap means that it is not as versatile, as there may be circumstances and situations where only a strap would be appropriate (for either aesthetic or functional reasons) CONCLUSIONS: POSSIBLE SCORE: 100 OVERALL SCORE: Submariner: 76 Yacht-Master: 76 Wow. I was not expecting that to be the result I am genuinely surprized, and would have expected a clear winner on points I guess the only explanation for this, is that for every instance where the Yacht-Master beats the Submariner in aesthetic terms, the Submariner wins those points back through functional and practical terms. However, I must note that I did withhold points from the Yacht-Master, for what I consider to be, if not exactly design flaws, certainly design oversights, where things simply could have been better, had the designers thought of them. I think if the Yacht-Master had been built without any of those oversights, then it would have topped the Submariner, but only slightly. Both are fantastic watches, and I would recommend either to anyone. I would recommend that anyone who has previously dismissed a Yacht-Master to consider treating themselves to one, even if it is only of Canal St quality, simply so they can experience the higher aesthetics compared to the utilitarian Submariner. This was a shootout between the 'girl next door' and the 'prom queen', and they both proved their worth in different ways There is one aspect of the watches which I want to quickly touch upon, and that requires me to quote from John's review of the Yacht-Master: John raises a point in his review which I do not entirely understand. If both watches are using the same case and crown, why are they both not equally water-resistant? I believe one possible answer may come from previous research on the Rolex Sea-Dweller, where watches which were tested and found to have water-resistance greater than the rated depth, were fitted with new dials with an updated depth rating. I wonder if it might simply be an instance of the Yacht-Master not being officially tested beyond 100 meters, even if the construction itself, would be able to withstand depths beyond the rated tolerance. Who knows... As stated above, these opinions are solely my own, and others are free to agree or disagree with them as they wish. I hope this has been an informative review, thanks for reading [Edit to add] Following a Judges Decision, the crown score has been revised

Fantastic Can't beat customizations to keep things interesting