Review: Andrew's 116713LN TT GMTIIC

[freddy333]

In my ongoing efforts to locate a shallower caseback for my 116520 Daytona, I purchased my 1st rep in 2 years -- Andrew's entry-level TT GMTIIC (ROLGMT055). Upon opening & removing the watch from its packaging, I couldn't help but notice this rep's heftiness, which was an unexpected & very pleasant surprise. So I thought I would post a brief, mini-review of the watch I received --

Initial Impressions

This is a heavy watch, which, for a rep, is both unusual & welcome since 1 of the hallmarks of fakes is their lightness (relative to their gen counterparts). Unfortunately, I do not know the actual weight of the gen 116713LN, but, as you can see, Andrew's economical gold & SS (two-tone) rep outweighs my premium-priced SS ETA-powered CHS GMTIIC by 12 grams & you can easily feel this added weight when the watch is in your hand or on your wrist

Although yellow gold is not generally my thing, it is a very handsome watch

Additional Views

Here it is next to my CHS (with gen crown/tube & crystal)

The Positives

• The ROLEXROLEXROLEX anti-theft feature that runs around the case's inner flange adjacent to the dial is now a proper engraving (as opposed to the laser etching on my CHS & many previous GMTIIC reps)
  
  
• The lume in the index markers has been enlarged (& the metal surrounds narrowed) to match the gen (the lume area on many previous GMTIIC reps (including my CHS) was too narrow ).
  
• The engraving on the leaves of the clasp is now a credible-looking engraving (as opposed to the give-away laser etching on many previous reps (like my CHS))
  
  
  
  
  
  The Counter-Positives (Negatives)
  

  
  
  • The ROLEXROLEXROLEX anti-theft feature that runs around the case's inner flange adjacent to the dial is still misaligned (the hour markers between 7 - 11 should all be in alignment with the R in Rolex & the hour markers between 1-5 should all align with the X).
    
  • There is a bit too much play in the bezel, which you would not find on the gen. But, more importantly, the 'ceramic' (plastic) insert is misaligned, so that when in its null position, the arrow is slightly askew of the 12. This misalignment is easily seen from several feet away, making it 1 of the best ways to ID this watch as a rep (I have only ever seen 1 gen GMTIIC with a similar misalignment & its (understandably neurotic) owner, having posted pics on his 'irregular' watch on TZ & receiving immediate directives to return the watch to the AD, returned the watch to Rolex, who fixed the problem toot-sweet).
    
  • The arrow in the insert is shallower & much less 3-dimensional on this watch than on either the gen or my CHS. In fact, when viewed close-up, instead of the relief having vertical sides, it looks more nearly concave. Sort of like a lake where the depth gradually increases as you move towards the center. Because the depth & angularity of the relief is so prominent on the gen, the lack of same makes the insert on this watch look fake & is very noticeable from a foot or so away (from an arm's length, my rule-of-thumb for credibility, it is difficult to detect)
    
    
  • Although I have only had the watch for a few hours, its Asian 2813 automatic movement failed to restart after I stopped it to set the time. This has happened several times & is likely due to the usual problems 1 encounters with the used/unserviced movements that come in rep watches. I have not yet opened the case to check the movement's condition, but I have enough experience with reps to know what I am likely to find when I do. Being a low-end mechanical, if/when the movement dies, it is more cost-effective to replace it (with an ETA or similar) than to repair it, especially since parts are unlikely to be available, at least not readily.
    Similarly, if I gently shake the watch, the rotor continues to spin for a number of seconds, which indicates the need for cleaning/oiling. Again, no surprise there.
    
    
  • The datewheel font is serifed, while the gen (& my CHS) is not.
    

  Conclusion

  Overall, for its price, this is a very impressive watch. It's weight & solid feel give it a presence that is unusual for an inexpensive rep. The gold flashing looks good, but is not likely to remain so for long. The improved lume & engravings (inner flange & bracelet) mitigate some of the issues that have plagued previous reps, while its generic low-end motor & remaining inaccuracies belie its bargain basement price point & Far East-of-Switzerland source.

  Bottom Line - Recommended

  p.s. I should also note that, as usual, the transaction was smooth & trouble-free. Andrew sent good, clear pics of MY watch prior to shipment & even had his photog snap a couple of additional shots per my request. He also offered to cancel the sale if the watch did not meet with my expectations (if it is not clear from my comments above, it exceeded them).

  p.p.s. For those of you who missed out on the original (limited release) of the CHS GMTIIC, it is available again here. For those who are unaware, besides looking more authentic, the GMT hand on the CHS version functions exactly the same as the gen. Be forewarned that the GMT hand function on the CHS is also prone to break-down when used, so it is best used infrequently, if at all (I have used it 3 times (twice by accident while setting the date) in the 3 years I have had the watch).

  For reference, here is the gen 116713LN

  

[asf]

Thanks for the great review I can clearly see what the difference between the gen crystal and its AR'd date mag does for the look of the watch!

[calatrava]

I was about to jump on the CHS rerelease, but it sounds from your review that they haven't yet fixed the reliability issues with the CHS modification? I would love to get my hands on a GMT IIC with CHS that is sufficiently reliable for me to use it to set the time whenever I travel.

[freddy333]

I was about to jump on the CHS rerelease, but it sounds from your review that they haven't yet fixed the reliability issues with the CHS modification?

My comments regarding the CHS system are based on the original run. However, the new/current version appears to be using the same movement & no mention is made of the factory having spent the time/money to manufacture a proper set of purpose-driven GMT components to increase longevity. And, actually, even if the description contained big red words proclaiming we copy Rolex movement 1:1, I would not count on any of that until/unless either 1 of the RWG watchsmiths have disassembled 1 & given it a thumbs-up or a good number of these have been field-tested by RWG guinea pigs.....er, members.

[Migge]

Freddy, did the caseback fit the Daytona?

[freddy333]

Sadly, no. While the outer diameter & shape of the casebacks are the same, the inner flange that runs perpendicular to the plane of the caseback & fits down into the case well is located differently on the 2 watches.

No biggie. You have to break a few eggs to make a cake. In this case, I end up learning something new & have a nice gift for a friend's upcoming birthday.

The search continues.

[Dave123]

Rep looks pretty good to me Freddy,enjoy man...