Accurate Newman Daytona opinions?

[MarkJ]

Yup, a nice example of the 6263. Well done and wear it with pride!

[freddy333]

Yet and still, the real screaming flaw, even the symmetrical pusher models, is the pristine out-of-the-box state of the 'replica'.

I have to disagree somewhat. Condition is not, by itself, necessarily proof that a 62xx Daytona is not gen (at least, not in my book). Cause for suspicion, yes, but not the basis upon which to draw a final conclusion. I have handled a number of pristine gen vintage Daytonas.

What IS a tell on virtually every rep & franken is the dial, all of which contain inaccuracies. Incorrectly shaped/located coronets, incorrect fonts, missing 'tails' on a subdial 3, lack of proper subdial depth, texture, etc. The list goes on & on & different vendors' dials contain different (sometimes overlapping) sets of (mostly inexcusable) flaws.

[MarkJ]

I agree fully. It's the dial that make all the difference. The movement and case are pretty easy fixes and inaccuracies can be overcome with some skill. But, the dial is a piece of gold on Daytons 62xx models. So many little details and the dial itself is incredibly hard to make and finish. One week worth of work just to do a dial!

[Demsey]

@ Freddy

I suppose I should have qualified the statement better. I certainly wouldn't think 'condition' an overriding tell handling the piece for exam, or even from across a table, but more to one seen kicking down the tiles flashing in and out from under a shirt sleeve. Across the bar, yellowed perspex and dial patina lend me to wonder; "Wow, could it be?". Virgin condition; "Sheah, right." Especially the bars I frequent.

I just think the current pieces, from say, DW, are 'good enough' to pass as handsome replica watches, intrinsically, a' hommage. I am not a very discerning collector (if I can be considered one at all with a stagnant pool of seven Rolex and two Omega, the last purchased over two years ago this November) with regard to minutia. The nicest Vach I had was a fantasy. It just pains me to see enthusiasm shattered because the 'big players' go on about 'concentric embossing' of subdials and lateral alignment, in mm's, of incorrect serif on font. It certainly has it's place, here, there, and everywhere and the expertise is impressive. And largely over my head.

@Doc

Thanks. Good to see you. It was a legacy piece that I didn't aquire until late January this year. It was my father's. I had posted it once before here in a 'wrist thread'. I was going to post it on jr.jr., but well, JohnG was mean to me and I ran away crying before I could. I'll be back on the holidays. Tell John to keep handy his copy of Jane's All The World's Derogatory And Base Comment. He'll need it.

As far as the other; a gen is a gen. You need merely money to aquire. How common a concept. A good replica however? Well, that takes finesse, research, judgement and execution. You know, good conservative values.

[TeeJay]

@ Freddy

I suppose I should have qualified the statement better. I certainly wouldn't think 'condition' an overriding tell handling the piece for exam, or even from across a table, but more to one seen kicking down the tiles flashing in and out from under a shirt sleeve. Across the bar, yellowed perspex and dial patina lend me to wonder; "Wow, could it be?". Virgin condition; "Sheah, right." Especially the bars I frequent.

I just think the current pieces, from say, DW, are 'good enough' to pass as handsome replica watches, intrinsically, a' hommage. I am not a very discerning collector (if I can be considered one at all with a stagnant pool of seven Rolex and two Omega, the last purchased over two years ago this November) with regard to minutia. The nicest Vach I had was a fantasy. It just pains me to see enthusiasm shattered because the 'big players' go on about 'concentric embossing' of subdials and lateral alignment, in mm's, of incorrect serif on font. It certainly has it's place, here, there, and everywhere and the expertise is impressive. And largely over my head.

@Doc

Thanks. Good to see you. It was a legacy piece that I didn't aquire until late January this year. It was my father's. I had posted it once before here in a 'wrist thread'. I was going to post it on jr.jr., but well, JohnG was mean to me and I ran away crying before I could. I'll be back on the holidays. Tell John to keep handy his copy of Jane's All The World's Derogatory And Base Comment. He'll need it.

As far as the other; a gen is a gen. You need merely money to aquire. How common a concept. A good replica however? Well, that takes finesse, research, judgement and execution. You know, good conservative values.

Precisely. At the end of the day, a nice watch is a nice watch, regardless of if it is absolutely 100% flawless replication. Heck, my vintage sub is far from perfect, a bastardization of three distinct Sub models, but it works for me, and right now, I wouldn't want anything else on my wrist. If I was to wear a factory-fresh 16610, if anyone was to notice, I would probably get the "Is that a fake Rolex?!" question, but if I wear a watch which looks like it's older than I am, and taken quite a flogging over the years, it goes completely un-noticed Not a case of me trying to pass if off as a gen, as I wouldn't do that, I just don't want anyone to notice it period, and the vintage aesthetic provides that anonymity, to all but the most genuine of watch enthusiasts

[MarkJ]

I can't disagree with that logic. You hit the nail on the head. Demsey, you are pretty funny I love the scene setting! It really is for fun and most people would not be eye-balling the watch anyway. Enjoy!

[ken fingerlove]

A gen non-Newman dial is around 1-1.5 k.

Considering the investment in a V72 DW watch, that's significant, but not insane.

[gioarmani]

Great advice all.

And nice gen!