(Full list on page 2 of this thread)
Just over a year ago I started a thread on RWI. The purpose of the thread was to try to apply some notional clarity on the question, what makes a good Rep.
We have often seen the term Super Rep;
The problem with this is that it has no really clear definition and (as is of course to an extent any descriptive term) is open to a fairly high level of subjectivity.
The notion of a 1:1 clone is in all practical terms unattainable and therefore not useful to define between Reps.
It was then I came up with the idea to turn the whole thing on it's head and not describe the Rep, but the watch as a whole in both it's Gen and Rep to apply a term, which more described the situation surrounding a particular watch rather than a specific rep of that watch.
I Came up with the acronym NWBIG which means Not Worth Buying in Gen.
If this is already getting fuzzy and a little unclear lets look at an example or two;
Take the IWC 5445
It is a very basic 3 hand watch with a 316l SS case a movement derived from a 6498 ETA with small seconds at 6 That's the Gen
Gen or Rep I would describe any IWC 5445 as NWBIG
Why?
Because the Gen will give you no measurable and significant advantage over the Rep
Both will have a SS case of the same construction shape and finish. Both will have hands and dial almost indistinguishable from one and other.
Both will have an ETA 6498 derived movement of very similar finish and construction.
Therefore to buy the Gen gives you no significant or measurable advantage over the Rep , therefore the iWC 5445 is NWBIG
Below are a some examples of watches which I believe to be NWBIG. Importantly it is not the Reps which are NWBIG it is the concept of the watch itself which is NEWBIG. It is then a further decision as to which of the Reps of that watch are individually better and depending on their individual flaws (All will have some) and which of those flaws our individual taste disposes us of tolerating.
Bvlgari Diagono Magnesium
The watch is NWBIG because there is a Rep available which offers exactly what the Gen offers
The same construction methods and materials. Both Rep and Gen have simple 28800 VPH movements auto winding, of reasonable quality and serviceability. In the case of the Rep it is a Miyota 9015. In the case of the Gen it is designated an in-house movement, and not of any spectacular groundbreaking design or construction. The Miyota 9015 is arguably every bit as good
So 300$ ish for the Rep or $5000 ish for the Gen. For me this makes the watch NWBIG
Here's another;
Franck Muller Casablanca 8880
I have owned this in Gen . It is a SS 316l case of reasonably fine construction Powered by an ETA 2892
Reps are available I have one , and will add that the overall fit and finish of the case on the GV Rep I have is considerably better than the Gen
Dial and hands of the same construction. Powered by an ETA 2824, Both 2892 and 2824 run at 28800 and are equally serviceable. Arguably the 2892 is a slightly better movement.But does it give a significant measurable advantage over the Rep at $400 ish when the Gen is $7000 ish. I think not. So for me this watch is NWBIG Unless of course you have too much money and want to throw some at me.
I could go on and on with more examples and through the progression of this thread I may add some. However it is much more fun to hear what you guys think and to see the watches you designate as NWBIG, because the Gen gives you no significant measurable advantage over the Rep
There can be a degree of subjectivity in this notion. For example if you never intend to dive with a watch on your wrist you would probably designate a Rolex SUB as NWBIG, if you do dive then you will not .
Watches which will almost never be NWBIG will of course be those made in precious metals , as plating will never give the feel, heft nor exact colour of that metal. Also watches which have specific complications for which a movement duplicating these complications is not readily available to the Rep makers
So lets see your take on this
Just over a year ago I started a thread on RWI. The purpose of the thread was to try to apply some notional clarity on the question, what makes a good Rep.
We have often seen the term Super Rep;
The problem with this is that it has no really clear definition and (as is of course to an extent any descriptive term) is open to a fairly high level of subjectivity.
The notion of a 1:1 clone is in all practical terms unattainable and therefore not useful to define between Reps.
It was then I came up with the idea to turn the whole thing on it's head and not describe the Rep, but the watch as a whole in both it's Gen and Rep to apply a term, which more described the situation surrounding a particular watch rather than a specific rep of that watch.
I Came up with the acronym NWBIG which means Not Worth Buying in Gen.
If this is already getting fuzzy and a little unclear lets look at an example or two;
Take the IWC 5445
It is a very basic 3 hand watch with a 316l SS case a movement derived from a 6498 ETA with small seconds at 6 That's the Gen
Gen or Rep I would describe any IWC 5445 as NWBIG
Why?
Because the Gen will give you no measurable and significant advantage over the Rep
Both will have a SS case of the same construction shape and finish. Both will have hands and dial almost indistinguishable from one and other.
Both will have an ETA 6498 derived movement of very similar finish and construction.
Therefore to buy the Gen gives you no significant or measurable advantage over the Rep , therefore the iWC 5445 is NWBIG
Below are a some examples of watches which I believe to be NWBIG. Importantly it is not the Reps which are NWBIG it is the concept of the watch itself which is NEWBIG. It is then a further decision as to which of the Reps of that watch are individually better and depending on their individual flaws (All will have some) and which of those flaws our individual taste disposes us of tolerating.
Bvlgari Diagono Magnesium
The watch is NWBIG because there is a Rep available which offers exactly what the Gen offers
The same construction methods and materials. Both Rep and Gen have simple 28800 VPH movements auto winding, of reasonable quality and serviceability. In the case of the Rep it is a Miyota 9015. In the case of the Gen it is designated an in-house movement, and not of any spectacular groundbreaking design or construction. The Miyota 9015 is arguably every bit as good
So 300$ ish for the Rep or $5000 ish for the Gen. For me this makes the watch NWBIG
Here's another;
Franck Muller Casablanca 8880
I have owned this in Gen . It is a SS 316l case of reasonably fine construction Powered by an ETA 2892
Reps are available I have one , and will add that the overall fit and finish of the case on the GV Rep I have is considerably better than the Gen
Dial and hands of the same construction. Powered by an ETA 2824, Both 2892 and 2824 run at 28800 and are equally serviceable. Arguably the 2892 is a slightly better movement.But does it give a significant measurable advantage over the Rep at $400 ish when the Gen is $7000 ish. I think not. So for me this watch is NWBIG Unless of course you have too much money and want to throw some at me.
I could go on and on with more examples and through the progression of this thread I may add some. However it is much more fun to hear what you guys think and to see the watches you designate as NWBIG, because the Gen gives you no significant measurable advantage over the Rep
There can be a degree of subjectivity in this notion. For example if you never intend to dive with a watch on your wrist you would probably designate a Rolex SUB as NWBIG, if you do dive then you will not .
Watches which will almost never be NWBIG will of course be those made in precious metals , as plating will never give the feel, heft nor exact colour of that metal. Also watches which have specific complications for which a movement duplicating these complications is not readily available to the Rep makers
So lets see your take on this
Last edited:
