k2222 Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 first HBB then Corum so why not this one? If it is done right i will buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 The rep's CG lever is all black. Only the pivot point should be black...the lever should be brushed SS...Could be an easy fix? the Rep is actually correct the official Graham web site shows the lever to be SS. .. however the genuine in person at the AD is in fact with the black lever..more and more genuine watch companies are giving misleading info on their web site pics (possibly because of replications).. i have pics of the genuine from the AD somewhere .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 I like the look and the rubber band suits it well - any idea how large this watch is? it's with the Big Boy's at 46 or 47mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takashi Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 This watch is HUGE... Looks more like 49mm on the wrist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandelman Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I've waited and WAITED for this watch to be available. Now it is but there's NO WAY I will pay that much for it. Call me cheap, but it's not going to happen. To some of you more experienced folks....how long could it be before it is a more reasonable price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subzero1 Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I would love to see this repped That would look awesome on a black carbon fiber strap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellomen Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 the Rep is actually correct the official Graham web site shows the lever to be SS. .. however the genuine in person at the AD is in fact with the black lever..more and more genuine watch companies are giving misleading info on their web site pics (possibly because of replications).. i have pics of the genuine from the AD somewhere .. It is correct for the Chronofighter OVERSIZE.... but the advertise it as the regular Chronofighter. Only thing they must do is say it's the OVERSIZE and they advertise it correctly. The regular Chronofighter is 42 or 43 mm in diameter and the OVERSIZE is 45 or 46mm and does have a black lever. So nothing wrong with this new Graham IMO, only the ad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcsherry Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 It is correct for the Chronofighter OVERSIZE.... but the advertise it as the regular Chronofighter. Only thing they must do is say it's the OVERSIZE and they advertise it correctly. The regular Chronofighter is 42 or 43 mm in diameter and the OVERSIZE is 45 or 46mm and does have a black lever. So nothing wrong with this new Graham IMO, only the ad... Absolutely right - the Chronofighter Overlord measures in at 45.5mm, whilst the Chronofighter RAC (previously just the Chronofighter) is 43mm excluding the crown. In June 2006, the Oversize models 2OVAS.B01 and 2OVAS.S01 were modified to include a satin brushed lever and a new shaped pusher. Basically, this model is accurate but it is a rep of a 2005 model, whilst the current model range (consisting of 8 model variations) have a mixture of 2 different shaped pushers (polished sqaure in profile, and PVD conical in profile), and some of them sport the new brushed lever. Not a big deal, but hopefully when new models are released, the pusher will be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I hadn't heard about that one. You mean the AR isnt supposed to do that? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I really like this ChronoFighter! I think its a beautiful design that pushes the limits of conventional watchmaking. When i first saw this watch i was blown away! Sure its ugly as hell but its definately on my list of things to buy this year! dizz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) I'm not overly familiar with the brand, and have only just viewed this topic for the first time. But. As soon as I saw the gen watch for comparison, I immediately noticed that the trigger above the crown is a different shape. The 'head' of the trigger on the rep is about twice as high as it should be, and with less of an angle down to the stem. It's a nice watch, for sure, but, if such an error can be spotted so quickly when compared to the gen, it hardly rates as 1:1... As mentioned in the other thread on this issue, 1:1 should mean identical details (certainly of such a key component) Sorry. [Edit to add] Having looked through the rest of the thread, and seeing the second set of gen photos (with the black CG Lever), the trigger on that is the same as the rep, so perhaps there is variation in triggers depending on CG color... The trigger on the first gen shown definitely has a smaller 'head' on the trigger than the other two... Edited January 29, 2008 by TeeJay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcsherry Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I'm not overly familiar with the brand, and have only just viewed this topic for the first time. But. As soon as I saw the gen watch for comparison, I immediately noticed that the trigger above the crown is a different shape. The 'head' of the trigger on the rep is about twice as high as it should be, and with less of an angle down to the stem. It's a nice watch, for sure, but, if such an error can be spotted so quickly when compared to the gen, it hardly rates as 1:1... As mentioned in the other thread on this issue, 1:1 should mean identical details (certainly of such a key component) Sorry. [Edit to add] Having looked through the rest of the thread, and seeing the second set of gen photos (with the black CG Lever), the trigger on that is the same as the rep, so perhaps there is variation in triggers depending on CG color... The trigger on the first gen shown definitely has a smaller 'head' on the trigger than the other two... If you read my post on the last page, you'll see that this was a design revision made in 2006, and that the rep is of an older model. Look here to see the current Graham Chronofighter Oversize range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 If you read my post on the last page, you'll see that this was a design revision made in 2006, and that the rep is of an older model. Look here to see the current Graham Chronofighter Oversize range. Thanks for the link, and indeed, that's interesting to know about the difference in trigger shape. The photo on the link, actually cuts the very tip off of the trigger, so it's impossible to view the total height of the top. The angled section (which is barely visible) would appear to correspond more to the 'short' trigger in the first gen pics shown, rather than the 'long' trigger of the rep, and the 2nd gen pics shown. In the second gen pics shown, it's amusing that the photographer removed the serial number from one shot, but not the other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcsherry Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Thanks for the link, and indeed, that's interesting to know about the difference in trigger shape. The photo on the link, actually cuts the very tip off of the trigger, so it's impossible to view the total height of the top. The angled section (which is barely visible) would appear to correspond more to the 'short' trigger in the first gen pics shown, rather than the 'long' trigger of the rep, and the 2nd gen pics shown. In the second gen pics shown, it's amusing that the photographer removed the serial number from one shot, but not the other Getting a little confused, when you keep referring to the trigger, do you mean the pusher (the button to control the chronos) or the lever (the lever to start / stop the stopwatch?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Getting a little confused, when you keep referring to the trigger, do you mean the pusher (the button to control the chronos) or the lever (the lever to start / stop the stopwatch?) I'm not sure of the function, I just assumed it was the trigger... I'm refering to the black muchroom-shaped pusher above the crown guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawo Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 It is really funny how finicky we are when it comes to reps. I too have become picky when it comes to an accuracy of a rep. But at the end of the day, virtually every person I interact with on a day to day basis would never know any different. The president of my company has a personal collection of over 40 gens and has commented on my watches on many occassions and has never called me out. Either way, I pulled the trigger on this watch and I think it is a great rep. I will post pics when I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 It is really funny how finicky we are when it comes to reps.It's not so much a case of being finicky with reps, but, if something is sold and advetized as 1:1, then that's precicely what it should be. Not with differences. It's not finicky to expect people to sell things as they are described and advertized. I agree, such details are hardly likely to get a watch called out, I was just commenting in terms of accuracy of advertising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawo Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 It's not so much a case of being finicky with reps, but, if something is sold and advetized as 1:1, then that's precicely what it should be. Not with differences. It's not finicky to expect people to sell things as they are described and advertized. I agree, such details are hardly likely to get a watch called out, I was just commenting in terms of accuracy of advertising Much agreed that this 1:1 term should be ablolutely 1:1 in all visual aspects. I almost like the term "Ultimate" better. I think that most of us that have been around the rep world for a while, take the 1:1 term in stride and not too seriously other than that it is a pretty good rep. Not so good for the newbies to the rep world though. If 1:1 is to be used, then it should be specific to the trait of the watch where the 1:1 accuracy is. Like 1:1 case or 1:1 dial. I have yet to see a rep that is truely 1:1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 Much agreed that this 1:1 term should be ablolutely 1:1 in all visual aspects. I almost like the term "Ultimate" better. I think that most of us that have been around the rep world for a while, take the 1:1 term in stride and not too seriously other than that it is a pretty good rep. Not so good for the newbies to the rep world though. If 1:1 is to be used, then it should be specific to the trait of the watch where the 1:1 accuracy is. Like 1:1 case or 1:1 dial. I have yet to see a rep that is truely 1:1. Indeed, I think "Ultimate" is a much better (and more accurate) term. As you say, most know to take 1:1 with a pinch of salt, but, as you say, n00bs might not, and, in all honesty, no one should have to. 1:1 should mean 1:1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightstroker Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 Indeed, I think "Ultimate" is a much better (and more accurate) term. As you say, most know to take 1:1 with a pinch of salt, but, as you say, n00bs might not, and, in all honesty, no one should have to. 1:1 should mean 1:1. Then what do we do with the term SUPER?...The problem with all the terms that we use is that none of them are clearly defined....1:1....Ultimate....Super....what do all of these terms mean and how are they defined....they mean different things to different people.... WE are the people who decide what these terms stand for and a general consensus should be established that clears the murky waters....I tried to help clear up the 1:1 debate in this poll.... What does a 1:1 copy represent? More steps should be taken to define the terms ULTIMATE and SUPER and perhaps even CLONE.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) The problem with all the terms that we use is that none of them are clearly defined....1:1....Ultimate....Super....what do all of these terms mean and how are they defined....they mean different things to different people.... I think the dictionary definition of 1:1 would be sufficient. As I said in the poll, personally, if something is described as 1:1, then it should be 1:1. Terms like 'ultimate', 'super' 'ultra-special' are just easily ignored marketing hype. Every new generation of something is 'ultimate' compared to the previous generation, where 1;1 will always be 1:1 (unless it's actually not ). I agree, the term clone does exist in the watch world. Personally, I take it to refer to either unbranded versions of a watch, or extremely close copies of a watch, with a minor difference, and a company's own logo slapped on (Alpha and Invicta, being good examples). Indeed, we a re the people who need to do something about terms, but, as has been clear in the past, most people aren't so bothered about things, as long as they're getting what they personally want. Edited January 30, 2008 by TeeJay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tracy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 The amount of times one views a watch will eventually make the most indigestible fare in time if not desirable, as least palatable. Viewing the chronofighter however, hundreds of times over the years, has not made the slightest dent in my original opinion that I personally find it ridiculous. The history and function of the 'trigger' makes no difference to the reasons why one would wear it outside of the cockpit and without the gloves. Much the same as the gigantic cold water diver crown guards that the Russians came out with that are 100% logical for the use for which they were designed, however look silly at the mall or on streets & offices, and moreso in replicas... IMO,..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawo Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 The amount of times one views a watch will eventually make the most indigestible fare in time if not desirable, as least palatable. Viewing the chronofighter however, hundreds of times over the years, has not made the slightest dent in my original opinion that I personally find it ridiculous. The history and function of the 'trigger' makes no difference to the reasons why one would wear it outside of the cockpit and without the gloves. Much the same as the gigantic cold water diver crown guards that the Russians came out with that are 100% logical for the use for which they were designed, however look silly at the mall or on streets & offices, and moreso in replicas... IMO,..... But ditto goes for anyone wearing a submersible watch rated for 300+ meters. Most of us will never take a watch below a swimming pool. The styling is very unique and is definately a love or hate watch. People have the same opinions about HBB and Rolex or cars for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubFrog Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I've always liked this watch...and these new styles are wild. If we're really "getting serious", I'd like to see this one: Yellow dial Name (logo) in the Subdial Large numbers 12 / 6 46 mm-diameter SS or Black CG (doesn't bother me, either way) I'd wear this all the time...it's a certian conversation piece. If I can wear the Breitling Bentley on my little wrist, I can wear this...but, the BB does get noticed, that's for sure. So let's really get serious...how about a Limited Edition of 500...Overlord Mark III - REP THIS: OK...Now I'm done...I WANT THE Diver Deep Seal!!!!!!!!!! I'll have to wait for the price to drop a little...but, I will have a Graham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tracy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 But ditto goes for anyone wearing a submersible watch rated for 300+ meters. Most of us will never take a watch below a swimming pool. The styling is very unique and is definately a love or hate watch. People have the same opinions about HBB and Rolex or cars for that matter.Not the same issue,.. I was referring to physical features, not internal capabilities. Like wearing a rubber dive suit in the rain... 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.