RobbieG Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 No problem Freddy. Not laborious at all. I am refering to study of these two shots of the same watch, your and Jiro's which is new. To me his bezel fonts are very obviously thinner to the naked eye. Maybe even by 25% or so. It can be seen on all the numbers, but for instant comparison check out the "22" for starters. See it now? Yours: Jiro's Not to belabor this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 2, 2008 Report Share Posted August 2, 2008 I am refering to study of these two shots of the same watch, your and Jiro's which is new. To me his bezel fonts are very obviously thinner to the naked eye. Maybe even by 25% or so. It can be seen on all the numbers, but for instant comparison check out the "22" for starters. See it now? Yes, I think you may be right about that. Our watches have 2 different inserts. Here is proof. Look at the bend in the '4'. In my watch, the bend comes to a point But in jiro's watch, the bend contains a small flat segment And which 1 looks more like the gen? jiro's. Here is a gen for comparison (note the '4') The font thickness is a known inaccuracy of the rep, but the difference is so small that it is not a good indicator of a rep vs gen. In fact, no one on TZ identified the bezel font when someone posted pics of their rep there recently (though there was alot of discussion via PM about other issues like the index marker width & bracelet finish that gave it away). I doubt that jiro will know anything beyond what he sees on his watch. But I think the more important question is whether & where we get these more accurate inserts? And is it me or do jiro's CGs look too wide (wider than mine)? Maybe a different (smaller & serifed) datefont also (the date wheel may be different for chs & ihs versions)? But to put things into proper perspective, I think we are all neurosing (even more than usual) over this watch. None of these differences will be noticed by anyone but WISs. Certainly, no one you may encounter in your normal daily activities, least of all the average gen GMTIIC owner, will ever call you out while wearing 1 of these reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Now that you [Freddy] posted pics of the gen and 2 rep versions together, it seems that in an attempt to rectify the minor discrepancy in font and thickness, the factories actually went a little too far. If you look closely at the thickness of the new insert numbers versus the gen, the new rep insert numbers are actually thinner than the gen. For example, there is more of the faux black ceramic material filling the center of each loop on the 8 in the new rep version than there is on the gen. Funny they got this wrong given how accurate this watch is in nearly every other respect. But who cares, this watch kicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Now that you [Freddy] posted pics of the gen and 2 rep versions together, it seems that in an attempt to rectify the minor discrepancy in font and thickness, the factories actually went a little too far. If you look closely at the thickness of the new insert numbers versus the gen, the new rep insert numbers are actually thinner than the gen. For example, there is more of the faux black ceramic material filling the center of each loop on the 8 in the new rep version than there is on the gen. I think you are correct. All in all, I think the original rep insert (on my watch) looks closer. But they (the factories) always get at least 1 thing wrong (probably as a marker or way of ID'ing their work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Yup, they went from slightly too thick to too thin. Not that it really matters as you are right, the watch obviously kicks no matter which insert... Now that you [Freddy] posted pics of the gen and 2 rep versions together, it seems that in an attempt to rectify the minor discrepancy in font and thickness, the factories actually went a little too far. If you look closely at the thickness of the new insert numbers versus the gen, the new rep insert numbers are actually thinner than the gen. For example, there is more of the faux black ceramic material filling the center of each loop on the 8 in the new rep version than there is on the gen. Funny they got this wrong given how accurate this watch is in nearly every other respect. But who cares, this watch kicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 No doubt about that Freddy. I have always maintained that anyone calling out this watch has to know what to be looking for really well, otherwise it is virtually indistinguishable. In fact, I know of only one person outside these forums who has called one out and he was absolutely familiar with the reps existence and its major falws and was looking for them. As with all reps if you are a WIS and looking for flaws they can always be found. I have not owned the rep of this yet, but having owned the gen and from these and other pictures I can pretty much tell this watch is as good as it gets rep wise... But to put things into proper perspective, I think we are all neurosing (even more than usual) over this watch. None of these differences will be noticed by anyone but WISs. Certainly, no one you may encounter in your normal daily activities, least of all the average gen GMTIIC owner, will ever call you out while wearing 1 of these reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Wish I had the new ceramic model. All I have is this beater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jot9011 Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Also looks like they fixed the 6 in "16" but not at "6". I agree w/ Freddy. The original engraving looks overall closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) Must be synthetic sapphire, huh? Wish I had the new ceramic model. All I have is this beater. Edited August 3, 2008 by RobbieG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 Must be synthetic sapphire, huh? No, it's genuine acrylic and pretty thick. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 I was just pulling your chain man. Looks great. Love the strap too! No, it's genuine acrylic and pretty thick. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 I was just pulling your chain man. Looks great. Love the strap too! Thanks. Really beat up but keeps good time and gets worn once in a while. But I would like to get the ceramic! Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
condemore Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Personally, I only request that the replica were really nice and very well worked and finished, but I'm not so picky with the extreme accuracy of the replication of gen. This one is a real beauty, and changes incredibly with light conditions. Some photos of GMTII IHS ceramic in the late afternoon of a summer day, somewhere in Spain. This watch wears very comfortable, and stands the swiming pool quite well .... a classic piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Wow! Really cool photo shoot. Gotta love interesting diffused natural light. Nice job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
condemore Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Wow! Really cool photo shoot. Gotta love interesting diffused natural light. Nice job. Thanks for the compliments. Every time I see TTK, By-tor and others member's incredible and excellent pics I feel that they tend to display the watches as marvellous pieces but disconected of the wearer and the sensations that a person gets from the watch in reality, so I proposed to photograph the watches I have in natural light, (interesting one of course, but natural) without alterations and add the presence of the people wearing or owning the watch. I hope I have managed to produce and transmit that spirit in the pictures. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzy Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 So at this point...not including correct hand stack in the equation...who would most agree, has the better watch available. PT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoooooonz Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Has anyone does a scratch test on this bezel? How thick is the ceramic? Curious as to how this was done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfran42 Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Freddy, Did you notice that both of the "4"'s on your bezel are different? One has the flat part on the inside of the numeral you spoke of (14) and the other (4) does not. Is this issue corrected now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 Freddy, Did you notice that both of the "4"'s on your bezel are different? One has the flat part on the inside of the numeral you spoke of (14) and the other (4) does not. Is this issue corrected now? Yes (I have noticed it) & no (it is not corrected). The only other version of the bezel insert I have seen on GMTIICs is jiro's, which has correctly shaped 4s, but all of the engravings are narrower than they are on the gen insert. You picks your poison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 I love natural light as well. All of my pictorials are done without a light tent, never with flash, and only with diffused natural light from the early morning hours. Here are a few examples: Thanks for the compliments. Every time I see TTK, By-tor and others member's incredible and excellent pics I feel that they tend to display the watches as marvellous pieces but disconected of the wearer and the sensations that a person gets from the watch in reality, so I proposed to photograph the watches I have in natural light, (interesting one of course, but natural) without alterations and add the presence of the people wearing or owning the watch. I hope I have managed to produce and transmit that spirit in the pictures. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Has anyone does a scratch test on this bezel? How thick is the ceramic? Curious as to how this was done The bezel is not make of ceramic, not even the surface. If I had to guess, I'd say it is relatively hard, high-gloss plastic or resin of some sort. The bezel can and will scratch, as there have been numerous reports, including mine, of scratched inserts. However, my bezel hasn't scratched from any wear and tear on my part; it was delivered that way. Very minor, but still, enough to let you know it is not ceramic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoooooonz Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The bezel is not make of ceramic, not even the surface. If I had to guess, I'd say it is relatively hard, high-gloss plastic or resin of some sort. The bezel can and will scratch, as there have been numerous reports, including mine, of scratched inserts. However, my bezel hasn't scratched from any wear and tear on my part; it was delivered that way. Very minor, but still, enough to let you know it is not ceramic. So more cartel lies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Here are a few wrist shots of my new GMT2 from Precious Time...... As you can see, it has the thinner bezel font. I prefer it like that, having seen the genuine first hand, it is more accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk45ca Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The bezel is not make of ceramic, not even the surface. If I had to guess, I'd say it is relatively hard, high-gloss plastic or resin of some sort. The bezel can and will scratch, as there have been numerous reports, including mine, of scratched inserts. However, my bezel hasn't scratched from any wear and tear on my part; it was delivered that way. Very minor, but still, enough to let you know it is not ceramic. the insert isn't ceramic? could you post pictures of the scratch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 wtf? I had a feeling the insert was going to be made from hard glossy plastic. I hope this isnt the case, but if it is, then i think im going to cross it off my list of watches to buy this year... 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.