Rolexman Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 I did a lot of searching and I didn't find a clear answer wether or not the ceramic on the GMT IIc is real or not. I know there are two versions the sandwich and the full ceramic but has anyone ever tested the ceramic... if the sandwich version is made out of real ceramic why make a full ceramic? Both can't be scratched right.. Did anybody ever tested their ceramic like trying to scratch it with a knife or so? I've read in several posts that Freddy thinks (or claims) it's plastic but I would also like some other members to chime in. So please tell me which GMT you have and how you know it's real ceramic or not. Thanks guys! PS: Which one was more reliable, the CHS or the ICH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 I did a lot of searching and I didn't find a clear answer wether or not the ceramic on the GMT IIc is real or not. I know there are two versions the sandwich and the full ceramic but has anyone ever tested the ceramic... if the sandwich version is made out of real ceramic why make a full ceramic? Both can't be scratched right.. Ceramic is used by Rolex specifically because it resists scratches & abrasions that would damage a standard steel insert. If you run a nail across the surface of the insert of a gen GMTIIC, it should not produce a scratch. Now, anyone who believes their $300 rep contains a ceramic or ceramic-topped insert should have the confidence to take the 'nail test'. Any takers? Which one was more reliable, the CHS or the ICH? Have a look for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenacious_b Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 Well it's something special as I completely cratered mine out on a door face the other day, and I could "feel" that I hit the bezel, and not so much as a smudge. So ceramic or not, it's tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 I can only speak of the sandwich version: it is NOT ceramic. I have two of them, and both have been scratched. They don't scratch as easily as the cheap painted metal rep-sub bezel inserts, but they still scratch. The "ceramic coated" (and probably full ceramic) claim is just one of those white lies that you have to see through, just like many of those that still claim you're getting an eta movement and not the ubiquitous asian clone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexman Posted December 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Thanks for your input guys. So we can conclude it is NOT real ceramic. Anyone who claims otherwise has to prove it by doing the nail test like Freddy said or my favorite... the knife test! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertieng Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 Cost of making a ceramic insert is high. Also certain technology is involved. Doubt a rep. just costing 300 bucks can give you the real thing. Making the ceramic insert may already cost more that that. Don't try your knife on it, you will regret it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db1 Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) i doubt its a real full ceramic insert, is really sound like an expensive procedure to produce something like this real ceramic and sell the whole watch for approx. 300bux. i also dont think anyone should try the knife test on these inserts =] only if there's one dead watch lying around though db1 Edited December 4, 2008 by db1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerwine Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 So you are all saying that none of the J12 reps are ceramic either? Or the HBB ? If those parts can be made ceramic then why not a bezel insert? You can buy a high end "All ceramic J12 rep for under $200.00. Rogerwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 If you saw what goes into making the gen insert... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
involt Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 I don't know if it's real ceramic, or it isn't, but I can tell you two things: 1) the insert can't be scratched by a sharp point (of a needle or pin) applying a mild pressure (I didn't dare to apply a strong one ) 2) a genuine replacement insert costs about 800$, but the Divergraph Orange Professional (by Dievas) has a ceramic bezel insert and costs 350$ (the whole watch, not the insert). So the high price of the gen Rolex insert doesn't have any justification in terms of manufacturing, but it's only due to the Rolex style So, I don't worry overmuch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 Good point. My girl scored a J12 rep from me and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt it is absolutely 100% ceramic. Don't know about the Bangs. Anybody else want to chime in as to why not make the insert of of ceramic if they have the material and can do it. So maybe we should assume it is a very expensice process? Let's think it through...Maybe getting the numbered channel into ceramic is what is hard? The J12 has no channeled bits into the ceramic. I have no idea. Just wondering. So you are all saying that none of the J12 reps are ceramic either? Or the HBB ? If those parts can be made ceramic then why not a bezel insert? You can buy a high end "All ceramic J12 rep for under $200.00. Rogerwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
involt Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 The numbers of the gen insert are filled with platinum powder (it's YG powder for the TT and solid gold inserts). The rep numbers are somewhat "painted". That makes a big difference IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerwine Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 I think what Rolex does to produce their Ceramic bezels and what rep producers do to create a look alike ceramic piece might be two very different processes, however I don't think that it would be any kind of a stretch for rep producers to come up with a real ceramic bezel insert. There are many Chinese companies that produce hundreds of ceramic products including the watch bodies used by Chanel and other fashion watch produces. They work with Tungston and also inlay metals and precious metals into ceramic jewelry as well and they do it very cheaply. So my guess is that however expensive it is for Rolex to produce the bezel, it will have no bearing on the costs for rep manufacturers to produce a look a like bezel and thus we have no real reason not to expect a ceramic product bezel to be used for these models. Rogerwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 Maybe. But we know for certain the "sandwich" inserts are not even partially ceramic, so until someone can prove that one of these "full ceramic" GMT inserts is actually ceramic, I won't believe it. I don't see why the factories would be motivated to produce actual ceramic, since the inserts look reasonably authentic and generally hold up well, and therefore don't generate many complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexman Posted December 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 Maybe. But we know for certain the "sandwich" inserts are not even partially ceramic How do we know that? By the way thanks for all the input guys. I think Roger makes a good point: real ceramic in reps, why not? But I'm sceptic like Jnkay. If it's real ceramic... proof it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnkay Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 How do we know that? By the way thanks for all the input guys. I think Roger makes a good point: real ceramic in reps, why not? But I'm sceptic like Jnkay. If it's real ceramic... proof it! The sandwich inserts get scratched, that's how. Several members reported theirs came with minor scratches, and I had two come with minor and not-so-minor scratches. The insert is durable, but not ceramic. There is probably an acrylic coating or something similar over plastic that gives it shine and reasonable scratch resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
involt Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 If you read some definition of "ceramic" (even the Wikipedia article will do), you'll realize that "ceramic" isn't a single compound, but a family of materials. I have no doubt that the material of the rep insert is different from the gen insert; but this doesn't mean that the rep bezel insert isn't "ceramic" IMHO, the question makes little sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexman Posted December 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 If you read some definition of "ceramic" (even the Wikipedia article will do), you'll realize that "ceramic" isn't a single compound, but a family of materials. I have no doubt that the material of the rep insert is different from the gen insert; but this doesn't mean that the rep bezel insert isn't "ceramic" IMHO, the question makes little sense Well the question is based on my understanding that ceramic doesn't scratch (or at least very difficultly). So in basics it relates to the fact if the insert can or can't be scratched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watch? Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 I have a 'Ceramic Coated Sandwich Numeral Bezel' apparently... not even sure what that is. But i smashed it against the sharp edge of an exhaust pipe the other day, i was really worried i had scratched or damaged the watch, but couldnt find anything at all... I'm petty sure i hit it right on the insert too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
involt Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Well the question is based on my understanding that ceramic doesn't scratch (or at least very difficultly). So in basics it relates to the fact if the insert can or can't be scratched. And it can't. Not easily, at least. It can't be scratched bt a nail, or by a sharp point applying a mild pressure (that would scratch an aluminium insert, however). So, don't worry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexman Posted December 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 And it can't. Not easily, at least. It can't be scratched bt a nail, or by a sharp point applying a mild pressure (that would scratch an aluminium insert, however). So, don't worry Thanks for the info mate. I appreciate your input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderinla Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 And it can't. Not easily, at least. It can't be scratched bt a nail, or by a sharp point applying a mild pressure (that would scratch an aluminium insert, however). So, don't worry Ok, now we know that the ceramic bezel won't get scratch easily, we still don't know if its 100% ceramic or not, can anybody remove the bezel and cut it in half to proof it ? Jie 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.