What does a 1:1 copy represent?

[Nightstroker]

An interesting debate has arisen from within another thread....some believe that 1:1 copy refers to the entire watch....others believe it applies only to the case and specific parts....I would like to hear your ideas on this subject and also determine what the majority of the members believe to be what a 1:1 copy represents....

From my understanding....although a few dealers have used the term 1:1 copy when referring to their reps....the watches do have differences from the gen....as in the case with WM9

I have also been led to believe that there has never been a true 1:1 copy of any rep....a few have come close....but no spot on reps....

[KB]

Well as I started that debate I may as well open here, to me 1:1 can only have one meaning as it would in any other given circumstance that the watch is an exact copy, the unfortunate reality though seems to be that members have become accustomed to the dealers very loose usage of this term and now see it to represent a watch that will accept gen parts but still carry other flaws.

Ken

[hambone]

Well as I started that debate I may as well open here, to me 1:1 can only have one meaning as it would in any other given circumstance that the watch is an exact copy, the unfortunate reality though seems to be that members have become accustomed to the dealers very loose usage of this term and now see it to represent a watch that will accept gen parts but still carry other flaws.

Ken

My definition of 1:1 is the same, meaning an exact copy,it is not possible to produce watches of exact specifications for the prices most reps are sold. The 1:1 terminolgyis most likely a simple misunderstanding due to language in some part, and as a term of promotion in a larger part. I think that 1:1 should be taken with a grain of salt and that the buyer can assume that the watch is a damn good replica.

[dvn]

My definitioln of 1:1 is the exact copy of the original (maybe except the movement). Up to date there is no 1:1 copy of rep that i know of. I wish the dealer stop using that term although they are using it right now for their marketing hype and reasonning for charging high price.

[V]

An interesting debate has arisen from within another thread....some believe that 1:1 copy refers to the entire watch....others believe it applies only to the case and specific parts....I would like to hear your ideas on this subject and also determine what the majority of the members believe to be what a 1:1 copy represents....

From my understanding....although a few dealers have used the term 1:1 copy when referring to their reps....the watches do have differences from the gen....as in the case with WM9

I have also been led to believe that there has never been a true 1:1 copy of any rep....a few have come close....but no spot on reps....

Spot on reps DO exist:

[FxrAndy]

1 to 1 very often represents a lie!

[V]

1 to 1 very often represents a lie!

Indeed

The funniest thing is that the Ferrari is NOT advertised as a 1:1 .. Probably because the market is not so big for it.

Although it is THE best quality made rep with all the details of the genuine copied. I wouldn't mind sending it to Panerai service if they had to check it cosmetically. The movement though it is another issue

[archibald]

Indeed

The funniest thing is that the Ferrari is NOT advertised as a 1:1 .. Probably because the market is not so big for it.

The Ferrari isn't 1:1 either because the movement isn't decorated like the gen, but I like V's term "spot on" anyway since it leaves a little room for insiginificant or fixable flaws. The more interesting question to me anyway is why aren't more reps spot on? Case in point: They make a Graham I-Wish-I-Were-A-Porn-Star Chronofighter as good as any rep ever made and completely botch a new round of automatic PAMs that they've been doing versions of for 5 years.

[The Mentalist]

What does a 1:1 copy represent?,

A triumph of marketing over reality.

[V]

The Ferrari isn't 1:1 either because the movement isn't decorated like the gen, but I like V's term "spot on" anyway since it leaves a little room for insiginificant or fixable flaws.

Well you have to open a solid caseback to see the movement PLUS it is very different movement than the one Panerai has. So decoration doesn't count since the movement is under a solid caseback.

So 'spot on' was not the correct word.. The watch is IDENTICAL, INDISTINGUISHABLE or whatever word you wanna say compared to the genuine unless you can find me a flaw we haven't already seen.

Even the AR is the same subtle AR the genuine has. I have handled and examined the gen in my ADs more than 5 times and even the weight is the same.

Flaw of the replica system? Maybe.. But this watch is 1:1

[dachshund]

Excluding movement, when a watch is advertised as a 1:1, that is exactly what it should be, a true 1:1, not almost 1:1.

Explain to me why our deales should be able to use a 1:1 term for advertising and its ok because, after all it is a rep., yet we openly chastie replicenter's sites for using the term 27 jewel when we all know they don't exist, why isn't that alright, after all, its a rep.

I know we don't have any control over what a dealer decides to post on his own web site, but we as a community do have, or damn well should have, control over what they post on our site.

[jens]

Hmmm, what a nice place this is, I learn a lot here, even math

According to some, 1 isn't 1, it may be 0.99 but it can also be 0.5, 0.745, 0.94 ...........using zero decimals I agree that it is 1, however:

To me, in this context, 1 is still 1.

And for a 1:1 copy, that's exactly what it should be if someone claims it to be. Visually identical in every small detail, including materials, finishing and in touch quality - everything. No exeptions. No room for flaws you can't find on the gen.. Movement is the exeption if it has a solid caseback, otherwise not. A real 1:1 copy should pass an inspection of the experienced eyes of an expert without beeing noticed as a rep.

For me the term 1:1 is meaningless, I don't expect to get that kind of reps for the prices we pay, 0.9-95 is in fact very good and the dealers should not be ashamed of the minor flaws one may find.

And, what to say the day they really put out a 1:1 rep ? 1:1++ ?

[TeeJay]

Hmmm, what a nice place this is, I learn a lot here, even math

According to some, 1 isn't 1, it may be 0.99 but it can also be 0.5, 0.745, 0.94 ...........using zero decimals I agree that it is 1, however:

To me, in this context, 1 is still 1.

And for a 1:1 copy, that's exactly what it should be if someone claims it to be. Visually identical in every small detail, including materials, finishing and in touch quality - everything. No exeptions. No room for flaws you can't find on the gen.. Movement is the exeption if it has a solid caseback, otherwise not. A real 1:1 copy should pass an inspection of the experienced eyes of an expert without beeing noticed as a rep.

For me the term 1:1 is meaningless, I don't expect to get that kind of reps for the prices we pay, 0.9-95 is in fact very good and the dealers should not be ashamed of the minor flaws one may find.

And, what to say the day they really put out a 1:1 rep ? 1:1++ ?

That's what I was going to say. 1:1 means just that 1:1 Identical in every manner. Not just 'looking' about right, but actually being precicely correct.

I would say, that, display back or not, the movement of a true 1:1 rep should be equally identical, regardless or not if it is actually being seen.

That said, I'm not bothered about 1:1 levels of replication. To me, 'looks good enough' is good enough. However, I would agree with the points above that if something is advertized as 1:1, then it should actually be 1:1, as a point of accuracy in advertizing.

[V]

That's what I was going to say. 1:1 means just that 1:1 Identical in every manner. Not just 'looking' about right, but actually being precicely correct.

I would say, that, display back or not, the movement of a true 1:1 rep should be equally identical, regardless or not if it is actually being seen.

From what you said you want basically a genuine watch.. because if EVERYTHING is identical to the genuine even the movement then you are buying a genuine and not a rep.

And although the watch companies have a HUGE profit on their watches.. You don't really expect to buy a 1:1 Seadweller exactly the same as the one Rolex sells for only 200$ do you?

Because I also want WORLD PEACE but it ain't gonna happen.

Keep in mind that even watch companies on their watches have on some of them flaws and small mistakes..

1:1 means that a genuine watch has been dissembled and CNC'd not replicated from photos of the sites.

And if the Chinese can do a perfect job and replicate every small detail like the Ferrari.. well good for them.

But honestly they are not Swiss workers who are paid a big amount of money and if they do a mistake they can check and double check every detail.

[Watchmeister]

Although 1:1 should mean exact copy in all respects but of course it doesn't in real life. 1:1 equals gen. Let's face it this type of somewhat misleading advertising exists in the legitimate world as well. When I read 1:1 in a rep advertisement I don't expect it to be truly identical. But at a minimum I do expect the watch to have precise case measurements and reasonably close case finishing, same functionality, correct dial and hand color, proper placement and sizing of sub-dials, crown, pushers, etc.

[TeeJay]

From what you said you want basically a genuine watch.. because if EVERYTHING is identical to the genuine even the movement then you are buying a genuine and not a rep.

Not necessarily. If a company were to precicely recreate something, it would be 1:1, but not 'genuine', as it was not made by the original parent company

And although the watch companies have a HUGE profit on their watches.. You don't really expect to buy a 1:1 Seadweller exactly the same as the one Rolex sells for only 200$ do you?

Well, we can all live in hope

I don't really care about 1:1 watches for my own wear, I was just commenting on what 1:1, means to me as a term

Keep in mind that even watch companies on their watches have on some of them flaws and small mistakes..

Absolutely. I read on TZ once, where someone was complaining about the hands on their real genuine Rolex not perfectly lining up with the minute markers every time Needless to say, they were rather laughed at and ridiculed for their unreasonably high standard. The comment I most remember, and which made me chuckle the most, was "Stop acting like this is the first expensive thing you've bought, and just enjoy it"

1:1 means that a genuine watch has been dissembled and CNC'd not replicated from photos of the sites.

Absolutely. So if it's being CNC'd, then there's no reason for there to be variations in measurements or specifications

And if the Chinese can do a perfect job and replicate every small detail like the Ferrari.. well good for them.

But honestly they are not Swiss workers who are paid a big amount of money and if they do a mistake they can check and double check every detail.

This is very true.

[TeeJay]

Although 1:1 should mean exact copy in all respects but of course it doesn't in real life. 1:1 equals gen. Let's face it this type of somewhat misleading advertising exists in the legitimate world as well. When I read 1:1 in a rep advertisement I don't expect it to be truly identical. But at a minimum I do expect the watch to have precise case measurements and reasonably close case finishing, same functionality, correct dial and hand color, proper placement and sizing of sub-dials, crown, pushers, etc.

Exactly

[capice]

just my humble opinion

1:1 is a gen otherwise it could.nt be 1:1 because of use of other steel for the cas,less quality movement ect

[jens]

Not necessarily. If a company were to precicely recreate something, it would be 1:1, but not 'genuine', as it was not made by the original parent company

Agree. With the risk of introducing a new term to be used by the dealers, I would classify such a rep. as a clone. And in fact, they do exist.

Another thing, why do people underestimate the skills of chinese manufacturers ? The ch. industry can make whatever you want at the quality level you request, they are not standing back of any country or industry industry in the world. For watches, they produce very HQ movements and cases at the same level as the swiss, at a fraction of the price. This is one of the reasons why the have become the no. 2 (in value) in the total world market, and increasing their share rapidly.

On the other hand, they will always try to cut corners to save some money; if their customers accept it they continue to do just that. They are experts in finding the lowest possible quality level their customers will accept without disturbing the business.

Therefore, if we accept 1 to be 0.9, their next move is to try out the 0.85 level.

[Nightstroker]

Thank you everyone for your input....I was surprised to see how many people think that a 1:1 gen refers only to the case and specific parts....I was expecting a lot more votes on the other side....it goes to show that although many people focus on the over-all accuracy of their rep....nearly the same amount of people are more concerned about the crucial elements of the replication....

If you think about it....WE are the ones who decide one way or the other....there is no truer authority than US when it comes to this subject....with this in mind....I think it is safe to say....that when the term 1:1 is used to describe the accuracy of a replica....it refers to (Minus the movement) THE ENTIRE WATCH....CASE, DIAL, HANDS, BRACELET (STRAP), BEZEL, INSERT, PUSHERS, CROWN and any other specific parts that require the finest attention to detail in order to earn the 1:1 specification....

Any further input on this subject helps to refine our craft and supports the proper use of this widely abused term....1:1

Fascinating that the Ferrari PAM is spot on....would love to see a thorough review of this watch with gen comparisons....

Edited January 27, 2008 by Nightstroker

[Daytona4me]

I dont know about 1 on 1 but I know that I have dreamed about 2 on 1 since I was a wee little boy. :cloud9:

[Nightstroker]

Too bad your still dreaming about it....I fulfilled that fantasy long long ago....lol