jnkay Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 (edited) Here's where I see the differences between the Super Rep GMT II-c and the genuine. Please note that I'm not Super Anal, which means all of the flaws can't bother me all of the time, but some of the flaws can bother me some of the time. Weight. The genuine feels slightly heavier to me. Actually, my gen sub feels a tad heavier too. Not sure where the weight difference would come from. I'd defer to anyone with a scale who can compare them, but I always feel like this rep is a bit lighter. Luminousity. The rep lume just doesn't get torch-like the way the gen lume does. I test them by taking a Surefire 65 Lumen tactical light and pressing the business end of the tactical light against the crystal. About 10 seconds is all it takes to charge either the rep or gen lume for an entire night. The gen will literally light up a dark closet with the lume glow. The rep will not. However, the large hour markers and wide hands of the rep provide enough lume surface area to be easily visible for 5+ hours, and is easier to see in the dark after 5 hours than a gen sub with its thinner lumed hands. Bezel rotation. The rep does match the gen's 24 clicks, and the rep bezel stops decisively at each GMT hour interval. Unlike many of the rep subs and older gmt models, the bezel does not move out of place when accidentally brushing up against something. The quality of the gen bezel rotation is clearly better and more refined. However, one advantage of the rep bezel is that if you like to use it to measure elapsed time, you can set the arrow marker anywhere on the dial. With the gen, you can't do that, as the bezel won't remain stationary between stopping intervals, and wants to move to the next bezel stop position. Bezel finish. Rep finish is exceptional. The gen finish is just slightly shinier though. Other members have pointed out that the numbers engraved in the bezel are a bit thicker than the gen. Crystal setting. Very close, but the rep crystal isn't separated from the bezel insert the way the gen is. It's hard to describe, but there is a difference. You should be able to see the difference in some of the closeups that several members have posted. The height of the crystal above the bezel insert (they are about level with each other) is the same in the rep as the gen. Coronet is there, but slightly misaligned. Not overly visible like some bad fakes. Dial. The rep dial is extremely accurate. I'm not super anal about lettering minutia, but I do tend to notice other differences. Two that are noticeable, albeith faintly, are the boldness of the minute tick marks (bolder in the rep, ever so slightly) and the thickness of the "white gold" rings around the hour markers. Hands. The hands are excellent, and for some reason, hold their lume better than the hour markers. In the end, this is good, because lumed hour markers are useless if you cannot see the position of the hands. The sweep of the second hand is accurate, and the GMT hand moves perfectly in sync with the hour hand. Date. The date fills the date window more completely than in the gen. This is to say that the gen has a bit more white space around the date, and this has a nicer appearence. This might be because the date window is not tall enough to fully encompass the date and still leave a small margin of white space above and below it. Also, the date in my watch often hugs the bottom of the date window and is not centered. Cyclops magnification and placement appear correct. Rehaut. Identical in depth and thickness. Some members have pointed out a lettering symmetry issue with the rep. Crown, guards. I'm not anal about crown guards, but they seem to be substantially correct on the rep, as are the crown dimensions. The quality of the crown/movement interface is not great (i.e. crappy noise when winding or screwing it in as compared to a gen, which is soooooo smooth). Case. Accurate. Even the fine brushing/polishing detail above the crown guards is right. That is, the entire top of the case is brushed while the sides and crown guards are polished, but there is a transition between the brushed and polished areas where the top of the case transitions to crown guards. This is accurate. Bracelet and clasp. Accurate. Includes an easy link, which works very well. Quality Control. Here are my observations about my particular specimen. -lume: evenly applied appearance (although hands are brigher as mentioned earlier) -bezel: tight movement, not sloppy -crown: typical OK quality winding sound and "it's not gonna snap off" feel. -clasp: flip lock is a bit on the loose side (it's OK though), but the spring-locking hook on the inside of the clasp is redundant and keeps the bracelet securely closed even if the flip lock is disengaged. -spring bars: good quality -movement: new, but origin/authenticity uncertain (advertised as swiss). Not adequately lubed. Very accurate when it is running, but for some reason (possibly the lube situation), it will lose 5-10 minutes over night when I'm wearing it to sleep. Theory: I'm an active sleeper, so when I do stay still for a while, the lack of body movement coaxes the unlubed parts to sleep. Bracelet finish: good. This might be one of those "soft metal" watches that The Zigmeister has started seeing fairly recently given the number of tiny scratches I have collected versus those on my gen watches. Just speculation. Engraving inside clasp is excellent. -Fit of bracelet to lugs and case: excellent on 3 sides, but there is a slight gap on the fourth. -Hologram: yes; outdated. Dial: no QC issues -water resistance: poor. For some reason, moisture gets into the case even though I haven't submerged it. The gaskets were all in place and fitting tightly, and the crown was screwed in, so not sure how this could happen. Hope this helps. Let me know if I forgot anything or you think I'm F!?*$%ING blind or something. Edited June 18, 2008 by jnkay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted June 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Oh yeah, the most obvious thing: no AR under the rep date cyclops. The folloiwng review was posted on rwi and has side-by-side pictures. http://replica-watch.info/forum/viewtopic....115&t=40456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Oh yeah, the most obvious thing: no AR under the rep date cyclops. The folloiwng review was posted on rwi and has side-by-side pictures. http://replica-watch.info/forum/viewtopic....115&t=40456 Great review and great photos on RWI ! Thanks for sharing. Stephane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertk Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Very good review! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Very good review, thanks for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Nice review. If I can add a few additional observations after living with 1 of the chs versions for a week & handling 1 other...... All of the index markers are slightly, but identifiably smaller on the rep. Especially the rectangular markers at 6 & 9 - they are narrower on the rep relative to the markers on the gen. But most people would not even notice it until/unless this has been pointed out to them & the differences are only really noticeable when you have the gen on hand for direct comparison. I have also noticed that the bezel on both reps intermittently centers slightly off-center so that the triangle ends up just a hair west of the 12 o'clock mark on the dial. Sometimes it aligns & sometimes it drifts about .5mm to the left. Not a big deal, but the gens seem to be dead on at all times. There are a few other differences that are not really worth mentioning because they seem to relate more to variations in the rep manufacturing process than inaccuracies of design. But the 2 very minor issues that do catch my eye (& they catch my eye only because I have spent so much time trying to find them that I have become overly sensitive to them) are the lack of AR between the cyclops & crystal and the slightly narrow 6 & 9 index markers. But even as it is, I find that I have alot of trouble telling the chs rep from the gen when they are photographed together. And, sometimes, even then........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Great Review, many thanks for that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 i think im gunna order one of these from Angus tonight... he has the $188 asian ETA copy version. Both ETAs (correct and noncorrect handstacks) are sold out right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athan Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Thanks for this great review!!! Also for me the most obvious and easy to spot flaws are: 1) The lack of AR coating under the cyclops 2) The wrong alignment of the rolexrolexrolex on the rehaut. On the gen's dial every second line corresponds to one of the rolexrolexrolex letters on the rehaut. go to http://www.rolex.com/en/index.jsp#/en/xml/...=M116710LN-0001 and press: enlarge view. Again many thanks for this great review!!! Athan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastergod Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Hi Thinking of using this oversized case for a project, I ask: What is the bracelet width? Still 19mm? Thanks! MG 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