tvt Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) What do you guys think? Is this thing real or fake? Other photos show that the dial has the properly raised 007 logo, it is just hard to tell in this shot. Thanks Edited November 28, 2006 by tvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank7502 Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pro expert dan Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 gen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted November 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Thanks for the thoughts, any reason why you think it is a gen because I want to be sure. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devedander Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 End links look very good but pearl looks off center... I won't venture a guess though because I don't have enough time under my belt to say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted November 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 I think the pearl may just be the angle of the photo (it is casting a shadow that sort of makes it seem off center). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hank7502 Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 I thought you were testing us. Do you know?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpops Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) Looks like a rep to me, but one of the old (legendary) ones from 2004. The big give away, is the m in Seamaster. It had the pet name of Seanaster. Edited November 28, 2006 by bigpops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devedander Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) Could be... but I blew it up in PS and my eye says the 1 oclock side of it is touching the triangle and is the side that wouldn't have a shadow, so if the light is playing a trick it's actually overlapping the triangle if anything... However on the backside I can make out a sliver of traingle... if it was touching on that side also there should be no way to see a sliver from any angle as it would be covered by the pearl holder... I've been fooled before, but usually I am pretty good at spotting tiny details like that... Edited November 28, 2006 by Devedander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted November 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well I was going to play dumb but yes, in fact I do know and I am testing you... but do not assume the watch to be gen or fake just because I know. I have seen some gens called fakes and vice versa. I am really curious what people think of this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pman Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Gen. The time isn't 10:10. I don't know. Either way it's a great looking watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted November 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 re: the bezel pearl. I am not sure why it looks off center in the photo but it is NOT really off center, it is dead on perfect centered so don't let THAT sway you. Any other guesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irongambit Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Fake...hands are too short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gargoil Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) Fake, dots at hour markers don't have the silver perimeter round them on the gen. Hands actually look ok!!! Edited December 3, 2006 by gargoil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Looks like a rep to me, but one of the old (legendary) ones from 2004. The big give away, is the m in Seamaster. It had the pet name of Seanaster. Looks like they're all Seanasters on Omega.ch too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsons Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Rep. The applied hour markers are too large & positioned too far from the seconds marker lines around the dial. The seconds line marks at the hour position have a bolder print on the gen to contrast the seconds. On this one, they are all the same. The gen does not have the SeaNaster issue. It is clearly SeaMaster on the gen. The dial print of the photo is too bold. It is thinner and very sharp on the gen. The Omega logo looks too rounded on this one plus the Omega & logo sits too low on the dial. If the 12'oclock marker were correctly positioned (higher on the dial), the logo would be too low. The hands appear to be of the correct length and would cross the hour markers correctly if the applied markers were positioned closer to the seconds markers, as they should. The bezel insert is misaligned, a common issue with reps & the metal pearl surround is a too thick. Just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpops Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Looks like they're all Seanasters on Omega.ch too. No, they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted December 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Sorry, I forgot all about this thread,,, for those who guessed most of you did get it correct, it is in fact my fake 007 40th anniversay and indeed it is one of the few that were made about 2 years back. Now some of the reasons people guessed it was fake seem a bit off to me. The hands are dead on perfect to the original. The gen DOES have metal surrounds around the hour markers... just like this one. Bezel is not misaliagned though it may appear to be because of the angle of the photo or something, but it is not in person. There is a slight SeaNaster issue I guess, though really slight. I think the SIZE of the dots are the biggest give sway that it is fake... but that is SO slight as to be almost meaningless. In this age of "1:1 reps" and all of that I think it is interesting that one of the best ever made is over 2 years old. I should shoot it again just straight on instead of at the angle I shot it previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.