TeeJay

No. By modern super-rep standards, the Sub-C simply isn't very good.

Even by Rolex standards, it's not all that good--and there are some other brands that are much better. Omega, Panerai, Sinn, IWC--there are quite a few reps out there that are much "better" in that sense than most Rolex reps.

HAVING SAID THAT--if you're wearing a rep to try and fool people, you're going to fail. That's not really what reps are about. YOU'RE going to know it's a rep, after all.

99.9% of people literally won't even notice that you're wearing a watch. Even watch people won't look closely. I'd have trouble telling the difference between a rep Sub-c and a gen at wrist distance, so unless you take it off and hand it to me I'm not going to be able to tell.

No. The tells on the TW are different, and it's hard to tell from that angle, but I could tell if I had one in my hands.

Again--buy a rep because you like the way it looks. Build a rep because you like building watches. But don't buy a rep to try and fool people. You're not going to. People believe the wearer, not the rep.

+1 100%

Just buy the watch and enjoy it for what it is

I never once said that they should adhere to any standards set by any government If not for standards of quality replica watches, what are we here for? Why do people like ByTor and everyone else take the time that they do to conduct quality reviews? To set standards for replica watches, yeah?

The point that I am trying to make is that in order to improve their (the dealers) business model, and in order to sell more gold and two tone replicas, they could do what i recommended earlier. My guess is that of all the watches they sell, maybe 10-15% of them are gold plated or two tone. Because there are no standards at all for their gold plating, nobody wants to take the chance of shelling out 400 bucks to get a rep with shitting plating that wears off. If they were to correct this malfunction in their business model, and if they were to announce and advertise the appropriate measures that they were taking to correct this problem, it seems reasonable that their number of sales for their gold and two tone pieces would increase. Furthermore, if the sales of two tone watches and gold plated watches increased, it might fare pretty well for them in that gold plated watches, in general, are more expensive than steel.

So why quote legislature if you don't want it applied? Other than that, I can't add anything to what Dave has already said in response

Hi all, I'm thinking of getting a modern style SS/blue dial Submariner for summer.

I've been to all the dealers' websites and the blue ranges from the Smurf blue to a beautiful dark, rich navy blue on trustytime's site.

My question is - is there more than one version of the blue color for the modern style Sub?

I don't care for the Smurf and am hoping there is a version of the moder SS Sub in which the blue dial & bezel is a darker, less bright than Smurf blue.

Thanks very much.

If you check out WatchEden's offerings, they have a blue 16610 in the budget range None of that engraved rehaut, cerachrome bezel nonsense, just a Japanese Market release of a classic piece

What a beauty, fantastic acquisition I have to admit, the Explorer is starting to grow on me

Gens aren't worth the inflated pricetag. Yes, there is a dfference in build quality between reps and gens, but not enough IMHO to justify the difference in price. I'd bet shit to gold that if someone was to stop someone randomly on the street, show them a rep and a gen, they would not be able to tell which was which other than the 50:50 luck of the draw guess, and probably wouldn't notice the differences until they were pointed out to them. As for leaving a rep to a child... If it was a franken, it is still a watch which dad build, or even if just an OOTB rep, it is still dad's watch... That's the same sentimental value as a gen would have, just not the same resale value (and I think people who only consider resale value on anything are just wankers) How about OJ Simpson's Rolex? So what if it was a replica?It was still OJ Simpson's watch, and got it's value simply from that memorabelia aspect, but simply couldn't be sold due to the laws against selling counterfeit items... Not that I'm a fan of The Juice (I cheered when he got the shit kicked out of him by some punk in prison) I'm simply using that as an example of attached or perceived value transcending the cost price or even nature of the item... As I've said before, I was raised poor, and don't deny that I have a huge dislike of people who excessively flash their money about (I wouldn't call it a chip on my shoulder, I would describe myself more as a reverse snob who dislikes ostentatious and vulgar behaviour) but if I was to have the funds available for gens, I would still buy reps to get better value for money. Wearing a Submariner (or any other rep I've owned over the years) doesn't make me feel like a Big Man, it makes me quite rightly feel like I am wearing 'a nice watch'. When I want to 'dress down', I wear my 1655 on a leather fatstrap, which if gen, would be worth way more than the Submariner, and the DateJust, which I wear if I'm wearing smarter clothes, yet it doesn't scream for attention... It's all about perception and personal opinions

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you're saying the thickness of the gold plating is a function of the wearers intentions. This doesn't make sense, but maybe that's not what you were trying to say.

I understand that there is little consistancy in the rep world. Fair enough. However, the trusted dealers should at least have a couple of their reps analyzed. They could take in one of their reps with a "thick" plating finish and one with a "thin" and then report those findings on their website as the standard for thick and thin gold plating.

5 mils just sounds stupid and unrealistic.

Person who flashed the watch = Factory worker who performed the gold plating process, thus how well they were prepared to do their job

As for the other boldened point, why should they? People are happy to either buy the product as described, or not. The dealers don't care if their terms are inaccurate, and they certainly don't care about the US legislature whIch you posted I'm not sure if you were making a joke that they should adhere to those standards, or if you naïvely believe they actually should, but at the end of the day, they are selling contraband, not discounted 'factory seconds'. The kind of standards you're describing apply to genuine watches only. Freddy has mentioned several times in the past that the gold plating on rep watches has never been brilliant, is prone to wearing off, and thus full gold colored and two tone reps are not recommended as day to day beaters, as they can apparently lose their finish quite quickly

No pics, but y'all know what a budget 16610 looks like The one thing I will say though, is I can't get it off my wrist I'm sure it'll come off eventually, but for the moment, it's a firm fixture

Greatness isn't in the completion of an endeavor, but in its undertaking

Classic Rolex beauty

Love it :tu:

I don't know. On one hand all you hear from folks is how Rolex is too slow to change, never produces anything 'new', the Sub is an 'old mans watch', and can't compete with the likes of Omega, Breitling, etc. Their bracelets are cheap, they don't use AR, etc, etc, etc. Then they go and produce a new sub, with a much improved bracelet, fancy new ceramic bezel, AR on the cyclops, and give it a slightly beefier case ('cause, you know, the Sub is just too small) and people complain that they shouldn't have changed the 'classic' Sub.

This isn't aimed at you, TJ as I've seen all of the above mentioned on many different watch boards. Personally I think they did a good job of updating the Sub, while still keeping the overall look intact. It's definitely more 'bling' than the previous model, but it's on par with it's contemporaries from Omega and others.

That being said, I bet the new Sub would look sharp if they could give that insert a matte finish.

At least they didn't polish the center links!

I totally agree with you, the only thing I would say, is about how Rolex have updated an already popular classic, rather than releasing something new, like the Skydweller. As for the improved clasp, I would agree that it's a beefier design than the older oyster clasps, but I've read several instances of welds on both rep and gen clasps failing at the same point (especially if the watch is worn too tightly ) so to me, while it's clearly an attempt to modernize, it misses the mark, by being unreliable in a way an oyster clasp could never fail I guess as with everything, to each his own

Absolutely stunning, fantastic work

and let me add ... I accidentally dissolved the glue in my DSSD insert with the chemical in Cape Cod cloth, and it fell out onto the cement floor of my garage. It hit upright on it's edge and rang like a silver bell TIIIING TING TING as it bounced across the concrete.

No breakage. Picked it up and glued it back in.

Hi,

I have the cerachrom on a sub, just recently I forgot to take it off before I I went to work, I am an engineer. Later that day one of the guys asked me to hold some steel while he tacked it up with MIG, like a fool I did, forgetting I had my watch on. Later that evening whilst in the shower I noticed "weld spatter" on the bezel, [censored], there goes $50!.

Next day I "picked" the spatter carefully off the bezel and re-polished with a paste and mop, you cant even tell its been done under 10x magnification !!. (luckily no spatter had got on the numerals)

So I would suggest to anyome that cerachrom wins hands down

By the way, are the bezels you guys are fitting cerachrom or the sandwhich type ?.

That's interesting reading, the inserts're clearly more durable than I've been lead to believe I'll stand by my previous comment about finding the Ceramic Sub a bit fussy and blingy, though Rolex didn't really need a new sub, creating this was just corporate greed, so for those reasons alone, the 16610 would still be my preference and suggestion

No pics available at the mo, but am wearing my 16610, which I just can't seem to pry off my wrist

Not a big deal, I have a gen clasp on the way also!

Can you guys direct me to other watch makers/modders here? If i purchased gen parts from a source of mine is there someone who can build me a nice franken piece (for the right price) ? I'm really interested in a Date Just, Seems not many cases can fit it though, I'd love a franken!

Awesome To be fair, the clasp etchings are the only true 'day to day' weakpoints, the lack of lug etchings would only be an issue if someone was to take the watch to pieces to try and verify it

There's quite a few modders on the forum, but personally, I would recommend giving it a try yourself, as building really is a pleasure

Eh, I've own both a DSSD and a GMT-II C for the last coupla years and neither of mine have cracked, despite being banged around as much as any of my other watches. They are both, however, scratch-free.

Can it happen? Of course it can, just as it's possible to shatter a sapphire crystal. But it's such an unlikely occurrence that I wouldn't pass on one over that concern. Besides, if it does crack, just get a new insert.

In any case, going with the TW is a good choice as it's definitely the superior rep.

That's fair enough I guess I'll find out for myself when I built my GMTIIc hybrid project

At that price I've ordered one. Let's see how it looks when it arrives

Awesome, I hope you'll like it As mentioned, while some of the little details like clasp engravings are less than perfect, overall, the watch itself is a beaut

Sound a lot like the stuff people were saying when they made the switch from plexi crystals to sapphire. By and large, the cerachrome will be more durable (well, certainly the genuine will.) than the aluminum/alloy insert in the 16610 in much the same way sapphire is over plexi. Just don't knock it off a wash basin!!

Not really... Folks have reported damaged inserts just like folks reported welding failures of the DSSD glidelock clasp, so it can happen, and ceramic can crack easily under impact. What it would certainly be safer to say, is that if an insert was to be damaged accidentaly, aesthetically, it will look damaged, and the appearance of the watch will be ruined, where damage to a metal insert would not look as unpleasant

If I didn't already own a classic sea dweller 16600 I would be getting the TW, but as it is quite similar to that I am stuck between if I should order the ceramic or TW. And you say that the ceramic bezel insert isn't as durable? I am always knocking my watch on things, is the ceramic likely to crack easily in your opinion?

I guess it depends on how hard you may ding your watch... A knock against a door frame might not crack the insert, but I have heard of inserts in the GMTIIc (so the same composition) cracking when watches have been accidentally dropped, like knocked off a wash basin onto a tiled floor... Something I've said before in my musings about the Submariner line, and the cerachrome inserts, is that if a metal insert takes a whack, it might get a dent or a scratch, but that just adds character to the watch, where if the cerachrome inserts get chipped/cracked, it is just going to look like ugly damage (IMHO ) While I do eventually have plans for a GMGIIc-themed build, I wouldn't trust the insert to take the same level of (ab)use which I would throw at a metal insert without a second thought, so while it would be a vacation watch, I don't think I would trust it as a daily beater... Also, something I hadn't mentioned before, but feel is an equally salient point, is I've heard of folks losing the pearls from DSSDs and Ceramic Subs and having a hassle replacing them... They certainly appear to stand higher from the surface of the insert than the 16610-era pearls, and I have to admit, I can see them presenting an easy snag hazard, so just something else to consider

BK TW... I don't like the ceramic subs, they're too 'fussy' and blingy with the rehaut engravings, and the cerachrome insert is much less durable than the 16610's insert

A beautiful piece, and a fantastic re-acquisition

A shocking case of identity theft

Maybe I should change my name to Abisha's Papa

So it's a heavily modified MBK?

Hi guys,

I'm also looking for good quality Submariner rep with eta movement, can you point me some dealer where I can buy best for a buck watch? I would like to wear it daily so are they waterproof? I forgot to mention that I'm looking for dealer shipping from Europe to avoid custom problems.

Given you want eta movement, I'll let others suggest dealers who ship from Europe, but in most instances (maybe 95% in my experience) yes, these watches are waterproof Even budget a21j reps are waterproof, so you shouldn't have anything to worry about

As Ronin said, a Fantastic casual/sporty watch