116610 Ceramic Submariner

[watcher]

I became the proud owner of a gen Cermaic Sub on Tuesday and thought I would do a couple of comparison shots for you. One note on the gen though, I did intend to sell this one as I bought below retail but this watch appeals to me more and more as I look at it and wear it! The fit and finish is much higher than the model it replaces. Also you do get used to it's bigger appearance. The clasp and bracelet are very impressive and the Ar'ed cyclops is brilliant in practise.

Anyway onto the comparison. I'm not one for long reviews but the biggest differences between the 2 are as follows:

Crown guards are shorter on the gen making the crown appear more proud of the case than it is.

The bezel is too high and the teeth are not high enough or deep enough.

Rehaut is not as tall on the gen which gives the crown a hiher position compared to the rep.

Crystal not as crisp but that is normal on rep Rollies and no AR on cyclops.

The date font on BK's datewheel is very good with no noticable difference.

Hour markers have a rims that are too thick and also are slightly smaller than the gen.

Hands on the rep are bigger in size.

Bezel pearl is too dark on rep but the bezel finish is pretty good. figures are slighlty brighter o the gen watch. Gen insert is flatter.

Case is not quite as crisp on the edges(fairly normal on reps though).

Bracelet is quite good with quite nice SEL's.

Lume is more blue on gen but the rep is not bad. I forgot to do a lume shot for you so I will add this later.

All in all if you did not have them side by side you would only really notice the thick bezel and markers straight away and the rep is a nice watch in it's own right. Only the pure beautiful finish of the real watch shadows it when along side.

Onto some pics!

[Eton]

Congrats!!!

[PeteM]

Firstly Congrats mate Wear it well

Thanks for taking the time and sharing the pics

[alligoat]

OK, gen right, rep left!

It took me a while to figure that out!

Crown position on the gen is higher

All in all, I'm impressed with how well the rep compares!

Reps have come a long way!

Thanks

[Dizzy]

OK, gen right, rep left!

It took me a while to figure that out!

Crown position on the gen is higher

All in all, I'm impressed with how well the rep compares!

Reps have come a long way!

Thanks

If the plastic was taken off the rep it would have been harder to tell which is which

If you didnt know what to look for, you would have a hard time telling them apart. The AR cyclops is pretty noticeable and its crazy how thick the lugs are on the gen. I like how the rep case looks with the thinner lugs!!! Looks like a very good rep. I wonder if you can swap the crystal for a gen like Freddy did?

Dizz

[freddy333]

Congratulations on the new purchase.

If the rep makers would correct the steel surrounds around the pearl & index markers (too wide on the reps), that would take the rep a long way towards improvement. As with the GMTIIC, the missing AR below the cyclops only becomes visible under certain lighting conditions & no one other than neurotic collectors are even aware of it. Not even the staff that sell these things in ADs know about it.

[panerai153]

congratulations on the Sub, it's a really nice looking watch.

You know, when I scrolled down to the side by side photos, at first glance I knew the genuine was on the right. When you look at it overall, not necessary looking for "tells", the first thought is Quality. the insert engraving is deeper and thus makes the minute indicators and the numbers appear more 3 dimensional. Then when you look at the dial, it's just so crisp and everything "pops". That's not to say the rep is bad, because it definitely isn't, but my only way to describe the difference is the genuine looks like a photo that is spot on in focus, and the rep looks like a photo that is just a tiny hair out of focus. The dial print, the insert, etc. are just not as crisp and defined as the genuine.

As most of you have stated, the differences are so slight that only a WIS, or a Rolex watchmaker could spot the differences, and then probably only from very close up.

[RolexSigEp]

that looks amazing. makes me start to want one

[monacov4]

hey watcher im assuming you got your rep sub from BK and it just arrived right?

If you dont mind me asking, how long did you have to wait between placing your order for the sub and him shipping it out?

I ordered mine on 12th nov and im anxiously waiting for a email from BK to tell me mines ready for shipment, but i dont wanna bother him with unnecessary emails asking him how long more mine will take!

Thanks.

Edited November 27, 2010 by monacov4

[monacov4]

also, is it just the viewing angle or does the lume application on the gen seem flushed while the lume on the rep is concaved? almost as if the rep has too much lume it seems to be spilling over?

[By-Tor]

Classic watcher gen vs. rep review. Can't get any better than that.

I still remember the original Joshua Sub vs. gen in the old RWG. That was one of the most popular threads of its time.

The rep is pretty damn good. Actually I haven't really studied it as I never warmed up to these fat lugs models. Maybe it takes time to get used to the new shape.

Thanks for this, absolutely priceless.

[watcher]

@Dizzy

The pictures do show only small differences but in the flesh it is very clear which is which.

@monacoV4

The markers are slightly raised but no more than normal. The gen rings are thinner and more shallow making th erep look worse than it is.

Here is a lume shot guys and this is a surprise based on previous comments made about the Rolex blue lume models.

It is harder to tell as my camera does not show the correct colour rendition but the gen is more greeny than the very blue rep lume. People say the gen is blue but it is more turqoise than a true blue however long it is exposed. Rep is on the left as other photos.

[Watchmeister]

Watcher-

Great review. In spite of the differences I had no idea they were that close.

[dluddy]

Awesome review watcher. My, how far we have come

Thanks for taking the time to do this review

[The Red Baron]

Yea seriously - even side by side, almost indistinguishable. The one on the right (the gen) has just an ever so slightly better finish to it, but thats close EVEN side by side. And the rep has rep plastic on it

[redwatch]

Super comparison and thank you for taking the time to take pictures showing the subtle differences! I must say that BK Datewheel is outstanding!

[jnkay]

Completely awesome thread. Finally, someone here has both a gen and rep ceramic sub. I've been wanting this comparison for a long time and you delivered. Thanks!

[nix]

Looks great! You just need to AR that main crystal and cyclops!

[mjmurphy926]

Much closer than I expected. Great job! Thanks.

[krpster]

Nice work. I am amazed it is as close as it is. Of course it is more difficult to see the quality differences in the photos, as you said. But WOW! Makes me like mine even more knowing how good it is. Thanks for this!

[pman]

This is now the gen I want to own. Saving up my money. You're a lucky guy Watcher. Congrsts!

[FDG]

How is the steel compared? Is it 316L or 316F?

[watcher]

Not sure what the steel was on the rep but nothing compares to the overall lustre a genuine Rolex has! That said it compared qiute well and did not have the dull finish in low light that the reps used to have in the past.

[djmattm]

Ok first of all congrats it's really a beauty and definetely a keeper!!

And second: wow this rep is sure a beauty, the only real difference beside tiny little microscopic details is the ar cyclope, which is already being corrected (see the new LV from pwc)

[JimmyGee]

Thanks watcher for taking the time and effort. Great review and superb photos & congrats. on having both watches and wishing you a lifetime of enjoyment. Have my BW Rep shipping to me right now and looking forward to having it very much. Hmmm one day, I'll get a 2nd hand Gen.