What's so "Super" about "Super Reps"?

[brook0]

I have the Ferarri 008 and it has the weight and feel and quality of a gen. It may be too heavy! The price has come down after "the rush" and it is really quite a bargain. I do not know if the movement will hold up. I do not know who manufactured it but I hope they make some more. It costs as much as an Invicta and so far no one seems to be able to find any difference from the gen. Try it you'll like it.

Anyone out there know if this manufacturer is planning anything new?

[Chronus]

At the end of the day when I see Asian watches going for $400 I know my days in this hobby are numbered, it is not a question of whether these watches deserve this price tag or not, it's a question of whether I can afford to buy them.

Ater all I like everyone else here can afford to buy a gen (we all drive cars worth more than Rolex's) but I, as I expect most of you, have put my family on the top of my list of priorities.

Ken

And rightly so.

[that_watch_guy]

Super-reps cost a lot because of a few factors. One of them is the fact that for some models, 1-2 people have a monopoly on them. For example, the Hublot models. They don't cost any more to make. One or two people have a tight monopoly on them, and therefor, no matter which dealer you order it from, that dealer has to go through the person who has the monopoly on the HBB and pay a higher price on it. The dealers know which models will be popular, and thus, they may invest extra money for exclusive rights to it for 3-4 months, and reap the ridiculous profits for that period of time before the factory get tired of just selling to one person, and begins selling them out the back door, causing the price to bottom out.

Another reason for higher prices is that watches that have more attention to detail may require more time and effort to make. Not by much, but the factory knows they can sell it for more, so they do.

Remember people paying $500 for the PAM187 when it first came out, just because they wanted it now now now? NOw that watch costs $299 or less. Dealers are simply taking advantage of buyer's impulsive nature. The watches may be high quality, but they are not worth an extra $300 surely, the dealers are only charging that because they know they can.

The HBB is a great example of this. Despite the price, so many people buy it. That only encourages monopolies, cartels, whatever. By paying higher prices, you are re-enforcing what the dealers and factories already know; if they make a nice watch that is rare, and in demand, and exclusive, they can charge customers more for it and increase their average margin by 300-500%.

[that_watch_guy]

duplicate post

[italiano17771]

why dont we stick together as "consumers" and wait to buy the new reps. i mean come on, its not like we dont have something to put on our wrists. if you just patiently wait we will all be happy and have these new "super" reps on our wrists for much cheaper. as stated previously many times.....they sell it for this much because they can!!! i have been dying to buy a big bang, but the price is absolutely insane!! nothing against the dealers, but take a second and think....these guys NEED us. they are making a living off of us and id bet that they are doing pretty damn good. if we take some time before ordering these new reps they will see that they obviously need to drop the cost for it to sell. gentlemen, this is economics 101 -- SUPPLY AND DEMAND. i promise you....if we wait a couple extra weeks maybe a month or so before we buy they will have to lower the price.

[crystalcranium]

why dont we stick together as "consumers" and wait to buy the new reps. i mean come on, its not like we dont have something to put on our wrists. if you just patiently wait we will all be happy and have these new "super" reps on our wrists for much cheaper. as stated previously many times.....they sell it for this much because they can!!! i have been dying to buy a big bang, but the price is absolutely insane!! nothing against the dealers, but take a second and think....these guys NEED us. they are making a living off of us and id bet that they are doing pretty damn good. if we take some time before ordering these new reps they will see that they obviously need to drop the cost for it to sell. gentlemen, this is economics 101 -- SUPPLY AND DEMAND. i promise you....if we wait a couple extra weeks maybe a month or so before we buy they will have to lower the price.

I think our hobby is driven by passionate people and it's difficult to be objective when the next "Super" piece rolls into town. This is evidenced by the number of "OMG OMG OMG!!!" posts when a new model of a very popular genuine hits the market. You are correct that the market would be better served by some dispassionate objectivity....and isn't that really one of the reasons we're here...but unfortunately, the boad sometimes adopts a mob mentality rushing for the lifeboats in a mass lustful frenzy to get the newest and best before the whole business comes crashing down some day.

[r11co]

I think SuperRep means 1:1 case and the same AR as the gen.

By this definition, the first 'super rep' was the ETA2892/ST-18 movement 40'th Anniversary 007 SMP of three years ago.

Other 'super reps' that predate the term (and the price hikes) include the Link, Link Chrono, Carrera 7750, SMP Chrono, Breitling Seawolf and Chrono Avenger Ti (the previous ones, not the cack new gen) and arguably the first 2824 based SMP (OK, so the He valve is out but the case and strap accepts gen parts...)

[Pugwash]

By this definition, the first 'super rep' was the ETA2892/ST-18 movement 40'th Anniversary 007 SMP of three years ago.

Hence my smiley.

ps. It appears that the term "Super Rep" was first coined by Phoband in November, 2006, whereas "SuperRep" is mine and dates back to March 2007. It looks like we'll have to get Phoband to write the dictionary definition. Yay, I escaped that one.

pps. The term "Super-Rep" with a hyphen was Chrgod's coinage, a week before I started using my CamelCase term.

[mezzanine]

I disagree with some of the comments.

First, I do not think that the previous generation of very good replicas is on the same level as the HBB or Cousteau. I own or have owned, most of the reps that are talked about as being 'super' reps of the last generation- Tag Link Chrono, Ingy, Breitling Chrono Av. Titanium, portugese, uPO, etc..

Each of these are nice, but none of them really compare to a piece like the HBB or some of the other watches mentioned. I would say there are three major reasons:

1) AR crystals- this is one of the major differences that makes a significant improvement. Also adds cost to the value of the rep.

2) Fit and Finish- this is hard to quantify, and probably the biggest thing that is missing from the perspective of someone who hasn't owned one of the more recent super reps.

3) Technical improvement- any time you're doing something like creating accurate replicas, if that's your goal, you're going to get better at it as time goes on.

An interesting observation: I haven't heard very many complaints from people who have actually shelled out the cash for the HBB. Most of the people that I've heard complain about the HBB have either never purchased it or held one in reality.

How does that work?

What it suggests is that there is something that those that have actually purchased the rep know, that others do not. Interestingly, if I'm talking with a member on this board, and they're a long time member and we're chatting reps through PM, usually I'll suggest to them that they get their HBB if they don't have one yet.

I think the effect would be similar to if we had taken an Ultimate Planet Ocean back in time and gave it to forum members when the best thing they'd seen was the perfect sub or something.

All those that had not owned a uPO would probably be up in arms about the extra cost of the Omega.

No one is arguing that there is not a point of absurdity that can be reached with reps. I think there is no real debate on this point. That being said, there are some reps that show no actual difference for being more expensive. My point is that there IS a difference to why the super reps are more costly, even if you don't think they offer good value.

[crystalcranium]

1) AR crystals- this is one of the major differences that makes a significant improvement. Also adds cost to the value of the rep.

2) Fit and Finish- this is hard to quantify, and probably the biggest thing that is missing from the perspective of someone who hasn't owned one of the more recent super reps.

3) Technical improvement- any time you're doing something like creating accurate replicas, if that's your goal, you're going to get better at it as time goes on.

Let me preface this with saying I'm in something of a devil's advocate mood. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's decision making process about what is an acceptable amount to spend on anything.

I really don't see much in your list of improvements besides AR that is a value added, quantifiable step up in quality. Fit and finish is not hard to quantify IMO. I have participated in reviews of woodworking equipment in publications in that trade and the fit and finish catagory is very well defined and quantifiable. Yardsticks like quality of milling, paint application, packaging and shipping, attention to detail in instructions, smoothness of right angles, deburring of sheet metal cuts etc.. are all benchmarks used in the assessment of a machine's "fit and finish". In a watch, there are such benchmarks as well and I just don't see how this latest crop of replicas is so much more of an improvement in this area. If the bracelet of a BCE is better "feeling" than previous Breitling replica bracelets, then there must be a reason ie. heavier gauge stainless, better transitional milling, better finish milling, etc... If a bezel turns more solidly, the click having more substance, then there must be a reason ie.. a thicker pin, a better more substantial spring, better milling on the bezel detents etc... Forgive my characterization...but I just don't see our Chinese friends building more intrinsic value into these things to justify a price increase. It's not their way of doing business. They will not build better intrinsic quality into anything unless it's at gunpoint if it is selling as it is. I don't quite understand your vague reference to "technical improvement" either. What improvement?? That they are getting better at making more accurate copies? I dont see a major leap in absolute fidelity with this latest crop over the great reps we've been getting in the last year. If anything, improved technical competence should be streamlining the process making pieces more affordable.

Like I said, just a little argumentative today. If you are an owner of replicas spaning the last few years and you have a sense these guys are better...I tend to believe it. I just wish I knew why they were better. It's the scientist in me struggling to get out!!!

[deltatahoe]

i posted this in another thread, but then realized it is actually more appropriate here:

it will be interesting to see how the rep game changes with the recent increase in prices on certain pieces (cc and i were discussing this in another thread).

my impressions of what lead to those price increases are as follows: one of the rep makers realized that if he were to buy a highly sought after genuine watch and take great care to ensure it is replicated as closely as possible on the first run (even using the rep forums via angus for input to ensure quality control on the dial, etc), then he would be the only maker with this particular well-replicated watch, and could charge a premium price for the product. if you ask me, that's a smart business man.

now, there are questions that immediately come to mind, such as: does it take a factory with higher quality control or CNC machining capabilities to create these well-replicated watches, or can all of the rep-making factories make replicas of this quality? if it takes a better (read: more expensive) factory to create these replicas, then i believe these higher prices are likely justified, and are here to stay in the long run.

if this is not the case, and all of these factories are capable of making replicas of this quality, then other rep makers/factory owners are going to see the big profits the initial maker is reaping from putting out these new "super-reps" as they are being called, introducing competition back into the market, which should result in a decrease in prices over time.

just my thoughts. would be curious to see what others think....

deltatahoe

[Pugwash]

I just wish I knew why they were better. It's the scientist in me struggling to get out!!!

Get a Steelfish and tell us why then. Experiment!

[crystalcranium]

Get a Steelfish and tell us why then. Experiment!

Gotta apply for grant funding for that kind of research!!

[deltatahoe]

Gotta apply for grant funding for that kind of research!!

[mezzanine]

Let me preface this with saying I'm in something of a devil's advocate mood. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's decision making process about what is an acceptable amount to spend on anything.

I really don't see much in your list of improvements besides AR that is a value added, quantifiable step up in quality. Fit and finish is not hard to quantify IMO. I have participated in reviews of woodworking equipment in publications in that trade and the fit and finish catagory is very well defined and quantifiable. Yardsticks like quality of milling, paint application, packaging and shipping, attention to detail in instructions, smoothness of right angles, deburring of sheet metal cuts etc.. are all benchmarks used in the assessment of a machine's "fit and finish". In a watch, there are such benchmarks as well and I just don't see how this latest crop of replicas is so much more of an improvement in this area. If the bracelet of a BCE is better "feeling" than previous Breitling replica bracelets, then there must be a reason ie. heavier gauge stainless, better transitional milling, better finish milling, etc... If a bezel turns more solidly, the click having more substance, then there must be a reason ie.. a thicker pin, a better more substantial spring, better milling on the bezel detents etc... Forgive my characterization...but I just don't see our Chinese friends building more intrinsic value into these things to justify a price increase. It's not their way of doing business. They will not build better intrinsic quality into anything unless it's at gunpoint if it is selling as it is. I don't quite understand your vague reference to "technical improvement" either. What improvement?? That they are getting better at making more accurate copies? I dont see a major leap in absolute fidelity with this latest crop over the great reps we've been getting in the last year. If anything, improved technical competence should be streamlining the process making pieces more affordable.

Like I said, just a little argumentative today. If you are an owner of replicas spaning the last few years and you have a sense these guys are better...I tend to believe it. I just wish I knew why they were better. It's the scientist in me struggling to get out!!!

Being argumentative is the only way this board is going to get back on track..

In terms of the question about the difference between the super reps and previous generations of reps:

-I don't think the cost of super reps are that far out of line with conventional new-model prices.

Examples like the Ferrari Chrono, the BCE, uPO, even the Steelfish. These are not much different then the Ingy, Tag Link Chrono, new Pams, etc...

So in that sense, I do agree with the point that there is a 'spectrum' of watches. What I'm really referring to, when I refer to a super rep, and I should have clarified this further, initially- are the highly detailed watches that are developed in conjunction with the forum's input that are based on highly complex designs.

The intricacy of the Big Bang is really something else, when you see it in person. My honest to god reaction when I first got it was to sell all of my reps. That's not so much the amazingness of the replica, so much as it is the HBB. That watch would stand out and be a personal favourite of mine if I was to randomly walk into a watch store not knowing anything. It's construction is on another level- but that's true of the real HBB vs. the Planet Ocean, etc...

Then you look at the Cousteau. Again, you have a next-level of complexity design, with the inner rotating bezel. That is new technology, like the newest intel processor. It has not been done before.

While the Cousteau is not as complex from a construction standpoint as the Hublot, it makes up for it with a high level of detail. 'Fit & Finish' in the rep world I'd imagine means exactly the type of things you suggested. In the case of the Cousteau, there are a myriad of fonts, prints, complex lume applications, an actual piece of wood sealed on the back, a molded rubber strap, etc... that are extremely accurate on this rep.

In a sense it's 'super' because they factory makes them 1:1, and because of Angus' input from the forum to the maker. There are so many details on watches like this, that to compare their construction or the obvious work that goes into them to the previous generation is not realistic, IMO.

That being said, I can understand the pricing problem. Believe me. I don't like it any more than you do.

[mezzanine]

My other quick point is this-

Is the Hublot Big Bang twice as good as an average $200 rep from one of our dealers?

Probably not, from a value standpoint.

But that doesn't tell the whole story. There's a 'critical threshold' in replica watches, from the time I've been around, where the watch makes qualitative leaps in believability compared to gens.

An example would be the first watch I got, which was from Flav, and was an Omega SMP 007. It was super nice, but it was a couple of years old. I then got an ultimate Planet Ocean. It was on another level.

These new ones are another 'leap'.

Quite simply, they're closer to genuine in appearance. I would say the difference from the average rep of about a year to two years ago, which probably represents a standard for mos of us (or at least me?) in reference to some of these newer ones, can be subjectively stated as follows:

the old ones are 80% of the overall feel and quality and appearance/complexity of a uPO/TagLinkCh/Ingy....or the 'first tier' super reps.

The 'first tier' super reps are about 80% of the quality of the current top tier super reps- the HBB and Cousteau. Between the older reps and the current high priced super reps, there is a very significant difference.

However, like technology, it is an incremental difference. Part of it is a function of being able to replicate more elaborate, and therefore more striking watches. This measure reflects the actual complexity of the watch 'capable' of being repped, which accounts for the 'technology' dimension of the criteria I laid out before.

[crystalcranium]

the old ones are 80% of the overall feel and quality and appearance/complexity of a uPO/TagLinkCh/Ingy....or the 'first tier' super reps.

The 'first tier' super reps are about 80% of the quality of the current top tier super reps- the HBB and Cousteau. Between the older reps and the current high priced super reps, there is a very significant difference.

I see your point about the level of complexity in the HBB requiring another step in the reproductive state of the art to get it right and it appears they have done an excellent job (well there's that little bezel screw falling out problem). I agree replicating complex genuines faithfully should warrant a higher price tag.

So I guess "Super Reps" doesn't mean "Super Accurate Replication" but rather replicas of "Super Complicated Genuines"? I say this because the first tier as you call them were certainly replicated in the 96-98% range of accuracy. I actually did a side by side with my jeweler of my TL Chrono and the genuine and she was blown away...even with an inspection loupe. I still consider that watch a "Super replica"!

[Watchmeister]

To me you can call them whatever you want. It is all about the relative value. Assuming a rep is 85-90% accurate and I currently have the money I look at the cost of the gen. A "super rep" at even $1,000 is not ridiculous if I really like the watch, it really is 90%, the movement functions correctly and it is a rep of a $6,000+ watch. On the other hand investing $700 to make the perfect Breitling which you can buy for $1,500 makes no sense. I have yet to see either the Aquatimer or the HBB so I will reserve judgement on those particular watches.

[crystalcranium]

I will make one final comment. I just took a look at some close up pics of the dial of the cousteau diver rep vs pics of the genuine in the IWC forum. No one is going to convince me that dial replication is a faithful copy of the genuine. I'll allow some room for the generic font of the asian 7750 date wheel but the marker lume fills are rough and not always within the borders, the numbers on the dial and inner bezel are the wrong font....that dial is a very average replication of the genuine. Not a thing super or 98% range accurate about it.