hooky Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Purchased a Mille Migla GT XL Chrono. I ordered the grey looking dial version, but i got somewhat different dial color. It looks more silver. I hope if one of the members can confirm if this is a correct version of an existing watch or if this one is way off. I paid 400usd. I also read the post of Lanikai: Posting of Lanikai And also saw the post of Mickey Padge: Post of Mickey Padge Please have a look at the watch I received, picture is in the attachment. (do not know how to make a direct link) Thanks for looking, J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 That is not the same watch, it is an earlier inferior version...... Spend the extra $85 and get the latest version, I hope you can return that to the dealer... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Am I right in saying that the inferior version has a clear caseback and the newer one has a solid engraved one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooky Posted June 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Am I right in saying that the inferior version has a clear caseback and the newer one has a solid engraved one? The one I have here has a solid case back. So that part is ok. But yes, i also saw some pictures at dealers' websites having the open see-through caseback. Actually, the 'inferior' version looked quite nice, but it is just not 1:1. The AR coating is amazing. I held it side by side with a IWC Aquatimer AR coating, underneath a strong lamp. And the Chopard had much better AR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 There are a few variations that I am aware of, with or without the correct caseback. However one thing is clear, only the latest version is worth buying. This one has no decent AR, bad datemag/font, bad bezel tachometer and numeral engraving (too bold), inner bezel numerals too small, wrong dial colour and font, plus there should only be three red squares between hours markers 11-12 and 12-1, not four.... I would guess the rubber strap does not smell of vanilla either So all in all a very poor replica, even more so when you compare it to the latest Chopard, which is, in my opinion, one of the best replicas ever made. hooky I really hope you can return this watch, it is not in the same league as the new version.. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Comparison pictures: You can see there is a vast difference in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooky Posted June 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 There are a few variations that I am aware of, with or without the correct caseback. However one thing is clear, only the latest version is worth buying. This one has no decent AR, bad datemag/font, bad bezel tachometer and numeral engraving (too bold), inner bezel numerals too small, wrong dial colour and font, plus there should only be three red squares between hours markers 11-12 and 12-1, not four.... I would guess the rubber strap does not smell of vanilla either So all in all a very poor replica, even more so when you compare it to the latest Chopard, which is, in my opinion, one of the best replicas ever made. hooky I really hope you can return this watch, it is not in the same league as the new version.. Cheers! Actually, the AR is very good on this watch. Even better than the AR on the IWC Aquatimers i have. Also the rubber strap smells like vanilla. (bad smell anyways, i prefer no smell at all) Actually I bought the watch for someone else. He will not keep it, but luckily he knows someone who wants it. Lucky me... But I saw the differences in the post of M.P. That one is perfect indeed. Is there also a correct version of this similar: Chopard on Watchluxus Cheers. going to eat now. Pizza guy rang doorbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 No problem, happy to help I just noticed the 3 hour marker in your photo, it should not be there! The date mag is in the wrong position! Although, I can't see any tell tale signs of AR in the picture, I will take your word for it Enjoy your pizza, I just finished off a pizza myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now