gran Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 The IWC Portuguese I was on the airport in Toronto going to Houston on the 4th of August and i met the watch collector Georges Mijares (Director of Gabriel Resources Ltd Toronto). Washing my hands in the washroom I got a glimpse of his gold IWC Portuguese Chrono-Automatic-3714.02 Watch (a watch that can cost up to $10,000 new). I said “that’s a nice watch you got there” he said yes "thank you" and spotted my IWC Jones and strongly complimented me on it and how nice it is. He said he was a watch collector and so did I and even after he had looked at my Jones he did not realize it was a replica. Georges even said that he had looked at the Jones in Amsterdam and had almost decided to buy it. Then he asked "can I ask how much you paid for your Jones". At that point I felt that I hade to tell him that it was a replica.....and when he then realized I was wearing a fake he was surprised but not too upset…still we parted as friends and he gave me his business card so we could have further contact (should I?). Regards Gran the Collector :smile: BTW I bought my last eddition IWC Jones with decorated movement and blued hands form Eddie Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Gran, You have a very nice IWC Jones! What movement is that? It is difficult to tell a rep these days. Even "Collector" cannot tell the different sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
none Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 (edited) Gran, You have a very nice IWC Jones! What movement is that? It is difficult to tell a rep these days. Even "Collector" cannot tell the different sometime. I don't understand that a real watch collector is that easy to convince. I also own a rep IWC FA Jones. Two weeks ago I carefully compared my rep with the gen. I put my rep next to the gen in a store in The Hague (Holland). The gen looked different: better finish (which is easy to see) and the dial looked better like this one: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/wat...ie/DSCN1936.jpg My friend and I both agreed that the rep did look a little bit cheap compared to the real deal... You have to see the gen FA Fones in order to see the difference. Anyway, I still think it's a good rep. Edited August 8, 2006 by none Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I don't understand that a real watch collector is that easy to convince. [...] My friend and I both agreed that the rep did look a little bit cheap compared to the real deal... It's really easy to convince one when you don't have a genuine to compare it with. If all you have is a memory of the real thing, a rep will remind you of it. These "Oh, it's obviously a rep" spotters are usually fellow rephounds. Even the WIS of the world get fooled if they have no reason to suspect a watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarks Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 For IWC, it is pretty easy to tell whether it is a rep or not. First would be by the AR. Gen IWC AR glass is very distinct and you can tell it is very well done and it shows a great deal. Second, would be the quality of the dial. The dial tells a whole lot. You don't have to compare much side by side in details to know which is gen and which one is a rep. Somehow for a gen IWC, the dial glows/shines/ back at you. Of course, you can escape if it is just a glimpse from afar, but if you were to stretch out your hand, it can be easily recognise if it is a rep or not. But my opinion is biased because I know this rep exist. If I didn't know the rep existed, I wouldnt not doubt the person unless the rep is so badly made. I would probably think the watch is 'odd'/ flimsy looking, esp for an IWC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted August 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 You guys are correct..obviously the genuine is of much better quality...still he apparently beleived it was genuine until I told him it was not so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sye46 Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 of course you guys can tell the difference. thats cause you already know what to look for. the average person will not know what to look for and cannot remember every single detail of a watch. Especially if they never owned it and only seen the watch a couple times in person or just photos. I'm a IWC collector, and let me tell you..... the FA Jones is a very good rep that would fool 99% of the people out there that don't know there is a rep, don't own the watch but know what the FA Jones is. Besides, there are only 4500 FA Jones in existence. The chances of running into a FA Jones owner is not very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alextor Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 of course you guys can tell the difference. thats cause you already know what to look for. the average person will not know what to look for and cannot remember every single detail of a watch. Especially if they never owned it and only seen the watch a couple times in person or just photos. I'm a IWC collector, and let me tell you..... the FA Jones is a very good rep that would fool 99% of the people out there that don't know there is a rep, don't own the watch but know what the FA Jones is. Besides, there are only 4500 FA Jones in existence. The chances of running into a FA Jones owner is not very good. I beg to differ...in part. It will fool anyone who does not know that an IWC Jones existed (or the ones who think that Jones is an homage to Alan Jones the Formula 1 racer)...but anyone who had or seen an IWC close up will recognize it as a rep (I very good one I must admit) .... The difference is staggering. The finish and craftmanship of the higher end watches (with the exception of the VC 'Over at Sears') simply cannot be reproduced at this price range. Check a real Patek or even better, a Lange & Sohne...that is an experience on and of itself! And yes, the chances of running into an FA Jones owner is VERY VERY SLIM...I think there are many more IWC Jones owners with the watch # 117 than IWC watches out there Cheers Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crystalcranium Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I just love the fact that I have "very good reps" When a salesman at an AD or a collector or owner of genuines is blown away by the quality of the replica, it always sparks an interesting conversation. As was mentioned before in another thread, I don't consider the watches we love and collect to be the run of the mill. These are watches that actually make the owners of genuines stop and think "now why the hell did I spend all this bread on this watch when I could have gotten one of those?" I consider them "high fidelity copies" of genuine pieces. When someone inquires as to their origin, I tell them, truthfully, they are pieces almost as rare as the genuines. You can't get these babies on Canal Street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAHLER Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Indeed a beautiful history... IWC F.A. Jones is a replica that attracts a lot me For now of IWC Replica I have purchased only for me this IWC with Eta 7750 bought in Rome : unfortunately not so close with genuine as IWC F.A. Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonystyle Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 In all fairness I dont think the guy inspected the watch that closely in a mens washroom Maybe just looked at it for 4 or 5 seconds (at the most) and said "Hey - thats a nice watch, Ive got the same one" sort of thing... I dont mean to take away anything from the rep, it is a beautiful watch...and if one has no reason to assume its fake, youd assume its a gen right right away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmosblau Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 For IWC, it is pretty easy to tell whether it is a rep or not. First would be by the AR. Gen IWC AR glass is very distinct and you can tell it is very well done and it shows a great deal. Second, would be the quality of the dial. The dial tells a whole lot. You don't have to compare much side by side in details to know which is gen and which one is a rep. Somehow for a gen IWC, the dial glows/shines/ back at you. Of course, you can escape if it is just a glimpse from afar, but if you were to stretch out your hand, it can be easily recognise if it is a rep or not. But my opinion is biased because I know this rep exist. If I didn't know the rep existed, I wouldnt not doubt the person unless the rep is so badly made. I would probably think the watch is 'odd'/ flimsy looking, esp for an IWC. I agree-- I have to say that I am pretty dissapointed in the dial quality on my silver handed Jones with the decorated movement from EL. It looks cheap. Even my wife said so. I thought so from the pictures, but I was hoping it would have better presence in person. With all the folks here dwelling on modding virtually unnoticable issues (like short cannon pins on PAMS), I figured this was an amazing rep by the way that our community went gaga over it. Sorry, but my standards are higher than this rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
none Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 I agree-- I have to say that I am pretty dissapointed in the dial quality on my silver handed Jones with the decorated movement from EL. It looks cheap. Even my wife said so. I thought so from the pictures, but I was hoping it would have better presence in person. With all the folks here dwelling on modding virtually unnoticable issues (like short cannon pins on PAMS), I figured this was an amazing rep by the way that our community went gaga over it. Sorry, but my standards are higher than this rep. I totally agree with you! It's all pretty obvious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted August 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 BTW he did take a very good look at the Jones on my wrist Reading this thread it seems the 99.99999999999999% Jones rep needs to be greatly improved? I guess it could be slightly improved but will this ever happen?........forget it. What we need more than anything is a beleivable replica of the The IWC Portuguese g. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmosblau Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 What we need more than anything is a beleivable replica of the The IWC Portuguese g. Totally. The Portuguese is my grail watch. I was all dialed into getting a gen last spring, but my bonus came up short! I have never seen a believable rep of it. I don't know why it's so hard to make a good one since the gen uses a modded 7750 movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarks Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 of course you guys can tell the difference. thats cause you already know what to look for. the average person will not know what to look for and cannot remember every single detail of a watch. Especially if they never owned it and only seen the watch a couple times in person or just photos. I'm a IWC collector, and let me tell you..... the FA Jones is a very good rep that would fool 99% of the people out there that don't know there is a rep, don't own the watch but know what the FA Jones is. Besides, there are only 4500 FA Jones in existence. The chances of running into a FA Jones owner is not very good. I disagree. Is this one of the best IWC reps? You bet. To be able to pass as a genuine? Far from it. You would probably fool 99% of people who do not know much about IWC or people buying it just because they can. A lot has to do with how you present youself to others with a rep on your wrist. But in terms of focusing just on the watch itself, you will be fooling yourself that a less than USD$200 can be passed off for the gen, esp with NO AR (huge huge giveaway esp from a distance), numeral indices and subdial imprints are substantially different in terms of quality (... and with the movement, the finish is def. not up to par). One rule I tend to go by (which work so far for me): If a watch can't pass the test by looking at pics (at diff. angles), you can forget about passing off as a gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmosblau Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 I disagree. Is this one of the best IWC reps? You bet. To be able to pass as a genuine? Far from it. You would probably fool 99% of people who do not know much about IWC or people buying it just because they can. A lot has to do with how you present youself to others with a rep on your wrist. But in terms of focusing just on the watch itself, you will be fooling yourself that a less than USD$200 can be passed off for the gen, esp with NO AR (huge huge giveaway esp from a distance), numeral indices and subdial imprints are substantially different in terms of quality (... and with the movement, the finish is def. not up to par). One rule I tend to go by (which work so far for me): If a watch can't pass the test by looking at pics (at diff. angles), you can forget about passing off as a gen. One rule I go by is if the watch is on your wrist and it makes you sick, then it's a crappy rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
none Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 I disagree. Is this one of the best IWC reps? You bet. To be able to pass as a genuine? Far from it. You would probably fool 99% of people who do not know much about IWC or people buying it just because they can. A lot has to do with how you present youself to others with a rep on your wrist. But in terms of focusing just on the watch itself, you will be fooling yourself that a less than USD$200 can be passed off for the gen, esp with NO AR (huge huge giveaway esp from a distance), numeral indices and subdial imprints are substantially different in terms of quality (... and with the movement, the finish is def. not up to par). One rule I tend to go by (which work so far for me): If a watch can't pass the test by looking at pics (at diff. angles), you can forget about passing off as a gen. I can't add anything to this. The fact that the guy did not notice it does not say anything. Believe me, I saw the gen next to my rep. There is a CLEAR difference in finish. Also the glass/crystal is very different, the dial looks a lot better etc. That does not mean it's a bad rep, not at all! It's just still pretty far away from being as perfect as e.g. a high-end 16610 rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasng Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 I handled the gen a few times at ADs in Hong Kong. There is a clear difference in quality of the rep and the gen. The rep just doesn't look right. First of all, the dial printing is a lot sharper and crisper on the genuine, which IMO screams fake on the rep. The crystal of the rep also stinks because of the lack of AR. There is also a noticeable difference in the finishing of the case. Finally, the hands look cheap and painted with blue fingernail paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerco Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Sold mine yesterday. Have a lot of dresswatches & the FA didn't match in quality the price i paid. gerco 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.