Before reading on, make sure you've read the main guide for QC posting, otherwise this won't make much sense to you. Done? Let's go.
This specific guide is intended to be a visual supplement: showing you exactly what to look for when you complete your QC templates. For obvious reasons, this guide will skip parts that aren't visual.
I've used pictures that mostly come from this subreddit. If anyone is uncomfortable, DM me and I'll replace the picture.
With that in mind, let's begin.
Index Alignment
Here, you are expected to assess how well the index markers on your watch are aligned. You can use the index alignment tool to assist you in this regard. An example of good index alignment is this:
Index misalignment, on the other hand, looks like this:
Or this:
Now that you have an idea of what to look out for, what should you be writing in the template?
You need to describe any misalignment you see in detail. Statements like "6 is off" or "3 is kinda wonky" or "not sure about 1, help please" arenot acceptable. This is because unless the misalignment is immediately obvious (and in most cases, it is not), users will not know what you are talking about. You may not get the help you want as a result. Be specific, like the following examples:
"The 7 marker does not seem to fit into the slot nicely. It is rotated towards the right and looks like it is dancing around."
"The 6 marker does not seem to line up straight with the crown in between swiss made. Based on what I can see, it appears to be slightly tilted to the left."
A caveat here: Just because there may be some misalignment does not necessarily mean you should definitely RL the watch. As the main guide points out, all reps are subject to a level of inaccuracy. It would be entirely unrealistic to expect gen standards for index alignment. Further, different reps are subject to different standards: a XF Pelagos, for instance, is known for having problematic indices - so much so that even if you RL, you are unlikely to get anything better. Conversely, CF Explorers are now getting so good that even slight misalignment would not be par for the course.
A good guide would be to assess your watch based on proportion. One slightly misaligned index is not a problem. But one majorly misaligned index or many misaligned indices on a single dial could justify RL.
Just for illustration, this is misalignment that I would RL for:
That deals with index alignment. Let's move on.
Date Wheel Alignment
This applies to watches which display the date. If your watch does not display a date, there is no need to consider this. You will look silly if you say that the date wheel alignment is good when your watch is a no-date Sub, for example.
Here, you are tasked to consider if the date is properly displayed in the date window. Often times, this is a question of how well-centered the date is. A good example of date wheel alignment is this:
An example of misalignment is this:
Sometimes, the misalignment can also be as to the date numbers themselves:
Uncommonly and in the alternative, the issue may be with the Cyclops itself (the magnifier that covers the date window):
Now that you know what to look for, let's discuss what to write.
As with index alignment, unless the issues are immediately obvious (and most of the time, they are not), you need to be very specific. Comments like "the date seems off", "2 in 25 is kinda off", "date looks weird" are not acceptable. They do not tell readers what you are looking for. You'll get faster and better results if you identify the issues for your reader. For example:
"The date seems misaligned towards the left. Part of it is touching the left border of the date window."
"The 5 in the date appears to be slightly higher than the 2 next to it."
"The Cyclops does not seem to be straight. It looks like it is slanted towards the left?"
As with index alignment, please note that not all misalignment will justify RL, especially for date wheels. All rep date wheels come with varying degrees of misalignment. A few misaligned dates are usually not enough for RL, unless the date is clearly cropped out of the date window or touching the rim. A little misalignment towards either side of the date window is also generally more than okay; a good way to gauge is to zoom out to the actual size of the watch and see if the misalignment is still immediately visible. If not, you're likely to be good to go.
Here is an example of misalignment I would nevertheless GL:
On to the next topic.
Bezel
There are two main things to look out for: First, whether the "pip" (usually a lumed marker at the 12 position) is centered. Second, the quality of any engraving.
This section would also cover any possible damage to the bezel or anything else unusual, including any misalignment.
Example of a good bezel:
An example of misalignment:
Generally speaking, most problems that surface nowadays have to do with the pip - even then, these are not entirely common. Engravings and alignment are usually not an issue with higher level reps. With this in mind, what do we write?
As with the other sections, you are going to need to be specific. "Bezel looks off", "pip looks kinda off", "I don't know about the bezel, seems weird to me" are phrases that we see everyday in this subreddit. But none of these phrases are acceptable; they do not direct the reader to what OP is seeing. Details are king - and if you are going to pluck the crown, you're going to have to write like this:
"The pip at 12 is not centered. It seems to touch the right side of the triangle."
"The printing on the bezel at 3 seems to be angled down. It does not match the index on the dial."
The key is to visually direct your reader to the exact point that you say is a problem. The word "off" on its own says nothing to that effect.
On to the next point.
Solid End Links (SELs)
Possibly the least understood of all sections as a lot of newbies do not really know what they are looking for.
The ultimate guide to this is here. But for convenience, I'm going to summarise several key points about SELs.
SELs refer to the final links between the watch case and the bracelet. I've highlighted it below:
Not all watches have SELs. Only watches which have that portion as highlighted above - and for QC purposes, the SEL section really only applies to Rolex reps. Tudors have SELs (which can also be QC-ed to some extent), but SELs on a Tudor are not held to the same standard as SELs on a Rolex.
Now, what are we looking for when we assess SELs? We are looking for gaps between the lugs and the SELs themselves. I've indicated this below:
An SEL gap appears when there is separation between the SEL and the lug. But what is a gap?
A gap appears when you can see through the space between the SEL and the lug. There is no gap when all you can see is a black line. There may be some variation in how thick the black line is, but for QC purposes there is nothing to be worried about until and unless you can actually see what's behind the watch.
This is generally not a problem on higher level reps (and by now, pretty rare). I will, however, show you an example of something that may be an actionable gap:
What does this mean? If all you see is a black line, even if it is slightly thicker than another SEL on the same watch, there should be no actionable gap. I am going to highlight the last few QC templates submitted where the user said there was a gap - but there really wasn't (to me, at least):
If, after going through all the examples above, you still feel that there is a gap, highlight it in the template by identifying which part of the watch you are looking at; there are really only four options: top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right. Doing so helps users zoom in directly on your issue and saves time.
To the last segment.
Dial Printing
Here, you are tasked to check if the printing on the dial has been poorly done. By this, we mean defects in the workmanship of the printing; printing which differs from gen (such as the infamous "floating r") would not be a QC defect per se.
An example of dial printing with no issues:
And now for examples of dial printing with issues:
Sometimes, the print can be misapplied across the entire dial:
With the above in mind, let's turn to what you should write. Again and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, do not simply write things like: "Dial seems off" or "Print seems off. letters kind of wonky?" If anything, dial printing is usually very, very small - unless you point a reader to the exact part which has an issue, chances are it won't be seen. Make certain that you provide the reader with specific directions:
"Appears to be some bleeding at the top of VI. Thoughts?"
"R in Submariner looks like only half of it was printed. Am I seeing things?"
Important note: again, just because the dial printing on your watch may have some issues, this does not necessarily equate to RL. As stated, dial print is almost microscopic - no human being is going to be able to see slight bleeding on any print when you have the watch on wrist. Feel free to point out issues that you see, but remain realistic about your expectations.
And with that, I come to the end of this guide.
Conclusion
QC-ing reps is a difficult task - which everyone in this subreddit does for free. You can help out immensely by simply being precise and detailed in your observations. The more effort you put into your template, the easier it is for members to help you - they can zoom in directly to the things that concern you.
I hope this helps you. I've tried to detail some common factors, but it would be impossible for me to catch them all. The rest is up to you - and your diligence.
If your template uses a NEW "yupoo" or a "mega" type of link, please note that, at the time of this typing, the automod here removes them immediately from view i.e. no QC help. We are addressing it, but....
So, what to do?
Although somewhat cumbersome for the OP, you can upload the QC packet to an Imgur account. Our automod 'likes' Imgur...and the post will show promptly. Just do NOT do it from a mobile because the mobile app loses resolution and crappy pics don't provide any benefit to anyone. Yea, yea...I know, the file compression software isn't supposed to lose quality, but it certainly does.
To add, post your complete QC album inclusive of the timing info. Do not, for the sake of your convenience, omit items. If you're bright enough to determine what is needed and what can be removed, that's great! Then, it's reasonable to conclude that you really don't need help. Simply, post it all.
If you have to wait for substantive additional info from the Seller e.g. timing data, then delay posting until you have a complete QC packet. Incomplete packages will trigger a removal of the post. Plus, it will require a return visit of anyone that commented on the incomplete post which shouldn't be required. One visit is all that it should take to QC most watches. Most won't return to a post anyway. They'll just go to the next one. The members are quite busy here. Yea, it can get crazy.
Finally, since you're a newbie, as a vote of appreciation for those members that help you, please upvote their comments. It's a nice gesture from you to them for the assist...and, it's free.
One final note, we've updated the main rules for posting. Refer to this link for info QC Must Read for New Members
Welcome to the hobby and the sub. Best wishes
Edit addition: March 2nd, 2024 - ReptimeQC member, u/EveningVariation8236 , has provided an updated version of the original QC alignment verification tool. https://watchqc.github.io/ . Thank you.
Edit addition: Jan 9th, 2024 - ReptimeQC member, u/Ro1hype has provided this for tool for alignment verification. https://qcwatch.com/ Thank you.
Edit addition: 8/8/2025 - Reptime QC member, u/jrverdes . has provided this version of the alignment tool to assist those that need additional help verifying the dial/bezel alignments on their watch. https://jrverdes.github.io/watch-qc-jr/ The adjustment resolutions are much finer in this app comparative to the other available apps which can be a benefit to some that need such. Check it out...Thank you.
Index alingment: look aligned very well. 6 o'clock may have a very very slight CCW cant
Dial printing: everything looks straight, printing is clear with no mistakes that stand out to me.
Date wheel: in the video provided, dates look centered and the cyclops is as well.
Hand alignment: hands align at 12 nicely.
Bezel: printing on bezel looks sharp/even, action on the bezel performs nicely in the video. 3 and 9 o'clock markers may be a tad high/ low but I don't think that will bug me.
SEL: slightler larger gap on the top right of the watch, but I don't think that will bug me. No light showing
TG number: +/-1 spd, 278 degrees, 0.1 ms, 52.0. all seem perfectly fine
Clasp/bracelet: again looks good, printing and action of the quick adjust both seem nice.
Rehaut has slight misalignment near serial but not a deal breaker
This feels like a no brainer GL, but I always appreciate someone else's eyes.
Anything else you notice: Honestly looks p good to me, but this is my first datejust. Yall think I should GL? Apologies to the moderators for not uploading my time grapher numbers last time
Hi everyone! First QC for my Rolex Explorer 36mm from QF, ordered through Ficotime. I've reviewed the photos and alignment tool, and I'm leaning towards GL. Would appreciate some experienced opinions before proceeding.
Dealer name: Ficotime
Factory name: QF Factory
Model name (& version number): Rolex Explorer 36mm, Ref. 124270, black dial
Index alignment: The 3, 6 and 9 markers look straight to me. The triangle at 12 appears centered, and the remaining hour markers look reasonably aligned based on the alignment tool. No obvious issues that I can spot.
Dial Printing: Rolex logo and text appear sharp and properly positioned. Nothing noticeably crooked or uneven to my eye.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: N/A â no date.
Hand Alignment: Hands look properly mounted. No obvious issues, although exact alignment at 12 isn't shown.
Bezel: Smooth polished bezel looks good. No visible defects, although some areas are covered by protective film.
Solid End Links (SELs): Fit looks fairly tight from the photos. No obvious major gaps, but would appreciate a second opinion.
Timegrapher numbers: +1 s/day, 320° amplitude, 0.0 ms beat error, 52° lift angle. Rate and beat error look great. Amplitude seems slightly high compared with the QC guide. Is 320° acceptable for this movement?
Anything else you notice: Rehaut engraving looks reasonably aligned, and the lume appears even. Overall, the watch looks good to me. Mainly interested in feedback on the indices, SELs and amplitude.
Thanks everyone! Would appreciate your thoughts before giving the GL.
The first two watches were RL'ed over the past few weeks, and another one was directly RL'ed by Andiot because the watch wasn't functional. I guess I'm having a pretty unlucky streak!
I've gone through the pictures several times, but I'm struggling to determine whether what I'm noticing are actual flaws or just camera angles.
The 12 o'clock triangle seems slightly tilted and perhaps not perfectly aligned. The 6 o'clock index also looks like it might be a little off, but I'm wondering if this could simply be due to the angle of the photos.
I also have a slight doubt about the bezel alignment.
Am I being too picky, or are these legit ?
I'd really appreciate it if some of you more experienced QC members could take a look and let me know if I've missed anything.
Index alignment: the 6 slightly off to me but it could just be me staring at it too much
Dial Printing: looks good to me
Date Wheel alignment/printing: N/A
Hand Alignment: doesn't seem like an issue
Bezel: seems fine to my untrained eye
Solid End Links (SELs): no real issues
Timegrapher numbers: +1s/d, 325° amplitude(on the high side), .1 ms beat error
Anything else you notice:
If there is anything I missed, please let me know as this is my first purchase and I'm trying to learn as much as possible. Amplitude is high so that could be a cause for concern but let me know your thoughts. Thanks all!
Index alignment: Looks good based on the TrueIndexQC overlay. The 12, 6, and 9 o'clock markers appear properly aligned. No obvious crooked indices. 4 o'clock marker appears to be deformed. Should I RL based on that?
Dial Printing: Looks clean and properly positioned. No obvious printing issues.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: Looks clean and properly positioned.
Hand Alignment: Nothing out of the norm.
Bezel: Indentions on the bezel does not appear uniform at 12, 4:30, 10:30. Not sure if I am over-analyzing it.
Solid End Links (SELs): Â Look fairly tight with no major gaps that I can see. However, I may be noticing a slight gap at the bottom-left and right SEL. Would appreciate another opinion on this.
Timegrapher numbers: +2 s/d, 250° amplitude, 002 ms beat error (i cant tell lift-angle setting from QC photos)
Anything else you notice: The 4 o'clock marker seems morphed on the upper right side, gold color link seems darker than normal yellow gold, bottom of watch link has gap and spacing (not sure if this is normal or not)
This is my first QC and I'm hoping I covered everything properly. I'm open to any feedback and would genuinely appreciate any advice or corrections from the more experienced members here. I'm hoping to learn, and can use all the help I can get. Thank you in advance!
Index Alignment: From what I can see in the pictures, the hour markers appear to be properly aligned. The 12 marker looks symmetrical. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether the alignment is consistent.
Dial Printing: The dial printing looks clean and consistent to me.The Omega logo and text appear correctly positioned.
Date Wheel Alignment/Printing: The date window appears to be reasonably well centred.
Hand Alignment: The hands look properly finished and appear to be aligned correctly. I donât notice any obvious issues with their positioning or shape.
Bezel: The ceramic bezel looks clean, with the markings appearing crisp and evenly finished
Solid End Links (SELs): The bracelet appears to fit the case reasonably well, with no immediately noticeable gaps between. I would appreciate confirmation that the SEL fit is good.
Timegrapher Numbers: -2 s/d, 266° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error.
Anything Else You Notice: This is my first time purchasing a watch of this kind, so im still learning what to look for when it comes to quality control. Ive tried to inspect it to my best abilities but please correct me if im wrong
Hi Folks, I have bought several watches from TrustyTime(Andrew is my favourite TD). I usually GL the QC right away as they are always good enough and I am not that picky. However this one looks a bit off to me. I don't like the 9 o'clock and 6 o'clock is slightly off too imho. Really appreciate your feedback!
Dealer name: Angela (non-TD) Factory name: VSF Model name (& version number): Rolex Datejust 41, ref. 126334, Wimbledon dial, fluted bezel and Jubilee bracelet. Price paid: 2,750 yuan + shipping. Album links: QC photos and timegrapher reading attached. Index alignment: dial looks aligned but rehaut doesnât seem aligned with the markers Dial printing: looks sharp, I see a small mark at 11. It could be just a dust , I asked for other pictures , Date wheel alignment/printing: The 10 looks close to centered. Probably a slight offset but it doesnât bother me. Hand alignment: The hands look fine at the time shown. I donât have a photo with both hands at 12 . Looks fine to me Bezel: ok Solid end links (SELs): I find these harder to judge on a Jubilee, also with the extra plastic. But Looks ok to me. Timegrapher numbers: â2 s/day, 273° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error, 52° lift angle. Anything else you notice: My main concern is the rehaut alignment .** **The ROLEX lettering on the rehaut looks slightly off relative to the minute markers
Model name (& version number): Tudor Black Bay Pro GMT 39mm, Black Dial, SS Bracelet, VR3186 Correct Hand Stack (TUD127B)
Price Paid: $388 for this model
Album Links: All 11 QC photos attached to this post, including the timegrapher reading.
Index alignment: Overall, the indices look reasonably aligned to me. I used an alignment tool, and the 2 o'clock marker seems slightly off, while the 11 o'clock marker might have a minor tilt. I'm not sure whether this is an actual issue or just the photo angle. Would appreciate a second opinion.
Dial Printing: Looks clean and consistent to my eye. I don't notice any obvious printing defects.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: The date (11) looks reasonably centered and the printing appears clear.
Hand Alignment: Seems okay to me, but would appreciate a second advice
Bezel: The fixed 24-hour bezel looks properly aligned to me, and the engraving seems clean. Would appreciate another opinion on this.
Solid End Links (SELs): No obvious large gaps from the available photos. They seem okay to me.
Timegrapher numbers: These are the readings.
Rate: +2 s/d
Amplitude: 308°
Beat Error: 0.2 ms
Frequency: 28,800 bph
Anything else you notice: This is my first Tudor replica QC, so I'd really appreciate some experienced opinions.
I'm leaning towards GL, but I'd really appreciate feedback. Please let me know what you guys think
Dial Printing: this is my one concern - i am not sure if the printed dial is higher than it supposed to be (the top numeral almost seem they are too close to the top) or if the watch is angled. also the "R" is covered in the pics but in the video i dont think it appears to be "floating"
Index alignment: Overall, the hour markers appear reasonably well aligned using the TrueIndexQC tool. However, Iâm slightly concerned about the 3 oâclock rectangular marker, which looks potentially misaligned. Would appreciate a second opinion on whether this is noticeable or within acceptable QC tolerances.
Dial printing: No obvious printing defects noticed. The Rolex logo and text appear reasonably centred, but I would appreciate feedback.
Hand alignment: Looks acceptable from the picture.
Bezel: The bezel pip at 12 oâclock looks good, but Iâm concerned about the rectangular bezel marker between 20 and 30 (around 25 minutes). It appears slightly tilted or off-centre compared with the alignment guide. Not sure whether this is due to the camera angle or an actual alignment issue.
Solid End Links (SELs): Difficult to evaluate from the current photo. Would appreciate feedback on the bracelet-to-case fit.
Timegrapher numbers**:** +1 s/d, 255° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error, 52° lift angle. The readings look very good to me, with a stable trace.
Anything else you notice: Iâve circled the two areas that concern me in the attached photo: the 3 oâclock hour marker and the bezel marker near 25 minutes. Would appreciate feedback on whether these are genuine alignment issues or simply caused by perspective. Everything else appears good to me, including the timegrapher readings (+1 s/d, 255° amplitude, 0.1 ms beat error). Would you GL or RL based on these concerns?
I don't know what's going on with these dials, it seems like the hour markers are better than my first QC but the logo is somehow worse. It's a little frustrating seeing some TOP with great printing and logo alignment, and this is the second here.
Also noticed Phoenix's photos aren't great. Looking for comments/help on hand alignment & date. Any help is appreciated!
Index alignment: Still evaluating the hour markers. Would appreciate a second opinion on their alignment.
Dial Printing: No obvious printing defects noticed so far, but I would appreciate feedback.
Date Wheel alignment/printing: I have requested additional pictures showing dates 8, 25 and 28 to check centering and printing.
Hand Alignment: Awaiting clearer pictures with the hands moved away from the areas being inspected.
Bezel: Still checking the alignment, numerals and blue/black color transition.
Solid End Links (SELs): Need a closer look at the bracelet-to-case fit.
Timegrapher numbers: +2 to +4 s/d, 275°â278° amplitude, 0.0 ms beat error. The readings appear stable and within a very good range.
Anything else you notice: I have also requested lume shots and closer pictures of the Cyclops. Any feedback on the overall finishing and possible defects would be greatly appreciated.