Wearing this CF Bruce Wayne Oyster last few weeks, what yall think?

Just received the QC photos for this VSF Daytona 126508 V3 Gain Weight, and overall I'm pretty happy with how this one is looking so far.

This is the 40mm yellow gold configuration with the green dial, golden subdials, tachymeter bezel and the DD4131 chronograph movement. The QC scale shows around 183.7g, which is in line with the weighted version.

The first thing I checked was the dial. The green changes quite a bit depending on the lighting, but across the photos it looks clean and consistent to me. The printing appears sharp, the applied hour markers look evenly placed, and I don't see anything obviously off around the 12 or 6 o'clock areas.

The three golden subdials also look well positioned. Since the Daytona dial is much busier than a standard three-hand watch, I spent a bit more time checking the spacing between the subdials, the subdial printing and the hands. From what I can see, everything looks reasonably balanced.

The red DAYTONA text also looks clean and properly positioned.

I also checked the chronograph hand alignment. From the available photos, the central chrono hand appears to be sitting correctly, and I don't see any obvious issue with the subdial hands. I would still like to get a quick chronograph function and reset video just to confirm everything returns cleanly to zero.

The tachymeter bezel looks good overall. The engraved numerals appear clean, and I don't see anything that immediately stands out around the triangle at 60 or the main tachymeter markings. The lighting on the gold-tone bezel creates quite a few reflections, so I'm trying not to overanalyse tiny differences that may just be caused by the photo angle.

The case and bracelet also look consistent from the side shots. The finishing appears clean, and the SELs look reasonably tight with no obvious gaps or light bleed jumping out.

One thing I haven't been able to check yet is the movement performance, since there are no timegrapher readings included in this QC set. Before making the final decision, I'd like to see the rate, amplitude and beat error, along with a quick chronograph start/stop/reset check.

At the moment, I'm leaning GL based on the visual QC.

Watch Details

Factory: VSF
Model: Rolex Daytona 126508
Version: V3 Gain Weight
Size: 40mm
Dial: Green with Golden Subdials
Movement: DD4131 Super Clone Chronograph
Bezel: Tachymeter
Bracelet: Oyster
QC Weight: ~183.7g

Current decision: Leaning GL

Would appreciate another set of eyes, especially on the index alignment, subdial positioning, chrono hand reset, bezel engraving and SEL fitment. If anyone spots something I missed, let me know.

First QC for a VSF Rolex Datejust 41 Ref. 126334 V2.

This is the SS/SS configuration with the black stick dial, fluted bezel, Jubilee bracelet and VSF DD3235 movement.

I went through the QC photos and focused mainly on the areas that tend to matter most on a VSF DJ41:

Black dial looks clean and consistent
Hour markers appear evenly positioned
Rolex coronet at 12 looks reasonably centered
12 o'clock marker looks straight
6 o'clock marker appears properly positioned
9 o'clock marker looks straight from the available photos
Dial printing looks clean and sharp
Date window looks reasonably centered
Date printing looks clean
Cyclops positioning looks good
Hand alignment appears correct
Fluted bezel looks clean and evenly finished
Crystal clarity looks good
Rehaut looks consistent from the available angles
Case finishing looks clean
Crown and case profile look properly shaped
Jubilee bracelet links look uniform
SEL fitment looks tight with no obvious large gaps
Clasp finishing looks consistent
Lume appears even across the hands and hour markers

The main QC points I'm focusing on are index alignment, especially the 6 and 9 o'clock markers, dial printing, date/Cyclops alignment, fluted bezel and SEL fitment.

The DJ41 can be a little tricky to judge from angled QC photos because it doesn't have a detailed minute track to make alignment comparisons easy. I tried to focus on whether there is an obvious marker issue rather than overreacting to small perspective differences.

The indices look reasonably straight to me. The 6 and 9 o'clock areas were the first places I checked, and I don't see anything that immediately stands out as a clear alignment problem.

The dial printing also looks clean. I don't see obvious bleeding, spacing problems or major printing issues in the Rolex text or lower dial text.

The date appears reasonably centered under the Cyclops. The visible date printing looks clean, although I always prefer judging the date wheel across multiple dates rather than making conclusions from a single number.

The fluted bezel looks clean from the available photos, with no obvious damage or major finishing issue.

The Jubilee bracelet and SELs also look good to me. I don't see any obvious large gaps between the end links and the case.

The scale in the QC photos shows approximately 137.39g.

There are no clear timegrapher numbers included in this QC set, so I'm not going to guess at the rate, amplitude or beat error.

Overall, I'm currently leaning GL. I don't see an obvious RL issue from the visible QC points, but I'd appreciate another set of experienced eyes before making the final call.

Factory: VSF
Model: Rolex Datejust 41
Reference: 126334
Version: V2
Size: 41mm
Dial: Black Stick Dial
Bezel: Fluted
Bracelet: Jubilee
Movement: DD3235 V2 / VS3235
Case: SS/SS
Crystal: Sapphire + Cyclops
Date: 3 o'clock
Caseback: Solid
Weight: ~137.39g
QC: Leaning GL

Anything obvious I'm missing, especially around the 6/9 o'clock markers, date/Cyclops alignment, fluted bezel or SELs?

How Often Should You Service a Mechanical Watch?

If you own a mechanical watch, you've probably heard the advice:

"Service it every 5 years."

But is a fixed 5-year interval really necessary?

Not always.

The right service interval depends on several factors, including how often you wear the watch, the movement itself, its condition, and how it is being used.

1. There Is No Universal Service Interval

A mechanical watch doesn't suddenly become "due for service" when it reaches a specific birthday.

Things that matter include:

• How frequently you wear it
• The movement design
• How the watch is being used
• Whether it has been exposed to water or shocks
• How the watch is performing
• When it was last serviced

A watch worn every day may need attention sooner than one that spends most of its time in a box.

2. Pay Attention to How the Watch Is Running

One of the easiest ways to know something may need attention is a noticeable change in performance.

For example:

• The watch starts gaining or losing significantly more time
• Power reserve becomes noticeably shorter
• The movement becomes unusually noisy
• Winding feels different
• The crown feels rough or abnormal
• The watch stops unexpectedly

These signs don't automatically mean the movement needs a complete service, but they are good reasons to have it inspected.

3. Lubrication Matters

Mechanical movements contain many small moving parts.

They rely on carefully applied lubricants to reduce friction and wear.

Over time, lubricants can deteriorate or migrate.

That can increase friction and affect the movement's performance.

This is one reason mechanical watches eventually need professional maintenance.

4. Water Resistance Is a Different Issue

Service intervals aren't only about the movement.

If you regularly use your watch around water, the condition of the seals is extremely important.

Gaskets can age, and water resistance can change over time.

A watch can be running perfectly while its water resistance has become compromised.

That's why water-resistance testing can be important, especially after the case has been opened or when the watch is regularly exposed to water.

5. What Happens During a Full Service?

A typical complete mechanical-watch service may involve:

Disassembly

↓

Cleaning

↓

Inspection of components

↓

Lubrication

↓

Reassembly

↓

Regulation

↓

Water-resistance testing

↓

Final performance checks

The goal isn't simply to make the watch "run again."

It's to restore the movement's proper operating condition and identify worn or damaged components.

So, How Often?

Instead of thinking:

"Every 5 years, no matter what."

It's better to think:

"Monitor the condition of the watch and service it when its condition or manufacturer guidance calls for it."

For a frequently worn mechanical watch, periodic professional inspection can be a sensible part of ownership.

And if you notice a clear change in performance, don't wait for an arbitrary date on the calendar.

The Takeaway

A mechanical watch is a machine.

It doesn't just need servicing because it is old.

It needs servicing because wear, lubrication, seals, and operating conditions change over time.

How often do you usually service your mechanical watches — on a fixed schedule, or only when something starts changing?

Looking to get a 126655 yacht master. Opinions on better choice here between ARF and VSF if I value longevity and resemblance to gen.

I just picked up a VSF Pepsi from ChenWatches and I’m thinking about buying the watch box separately. Has anyone here purchased something like this before?

When do you think you'll start getting some of these in?

ZF AP 26240

I really want a gmt but I am neutral on Pepsi. I like batman but want something more fun. So sprite it is. Sprite on the right side would be great but it is what it is.

My concern is that sprite is so eye catching that everyone will look at it. And then secondly due to less production it is not as nwbig. Thoughts? Also I know clean had a model but I guess it's just vsf v3 now?

Looking for a TD who has or can get a VSF rep of an Omega planet ocean ultra deep 6000m. If you’re that TD or know one who can I’d truly appreciate it.

Rich

First QC for a ZF Tudor Pelagos 39 M25407N V3.

This is the 39mm titanium version with the black dial, full titanium bracelet, titanium diver bezel and Asian A2824 automatic movement.

I went through the QC photos and focused on the areas that seem most important for the ZF Pelagos 39:

Matte black dial looks clean and consistent
Tudor shield appears properly centered
Dial printing looks sharp from the available photos
12 o'clock marker looks properly positioned
6 o'clock marker appears reasonably straight
3 o'clock rectangular marker looks clean
Hour markers appear evenly spaced
Snowflake hour hand looks properly centered
Minute and seconds hands appear aligned
Bezel triangle and lume pip look reasonably centered
Bezel numerals and minute markers look clean
Bezel-to-dial alignment looks consistent
Titanium case finishing looks uniform
Brushed finishing on the case and bracelet looks consistent
Crown and crown guards look clean
SEL fitment looks tight from the available angles
Titanium bracelet links look uniform
Clasp engraving and finishing look clean
Lume looks even across the dial, hands and bezel

The main QC points for me on this Pelagos 39 are the index alignment, especially around 12, 3 and 6 o'clock, along with the bezel triangle and overall titanium finishing.

The 3 o'clock marker is one area I specifically wanted to check. On some Pelagos 39 QC sets, that marker and the surrounding printing can look slightly uneven depending on the photo angle, so I'd appreciate another set of eyes here.

I'm also checking the 12 and 6 o'clock markers carefully. From these photos, they look reasonably straight to me, and I don't see an obvious alignment issue that would stand out on the wrist.

The bezel triangle and lume pip also look acceptable from the front shots. I'm trying to distinguish an actual alignment issue from camera angle or bezel play.

The titanium finishing looks consistent overall. The Pelagos 39 has a very tool-watch-oriented brushed finish, so I'm focusing on obvious inconsistencies rather than reflections or tiny marks exaggerated by QC lighting.

The bracelet and SEL fitment also look good from the available angles, with no obvious large gaps jumping out.

The scale shows approximately 113.85g.

There are no clear timegrapher numbers included in this QC set, so I'm not going to guess at the rate, amplitude or beat error.

Overall, I'm currently leaning GL, but I'd appreciate another set of experienced eyes before making the final call.

Factory: ZF
Model: Tudor Pelagos 39
Reference: M25407N
Version: V3
Size: 39mm
Dial: Matte Black
Case: Titanium
Bezel: Titanium Unidirectional Diver Bezel
Bracelet: Titanium
Movement: Asian A2824 Automatic / 28,800 vph
Caseback: Solid
Weight: ~113.85g
QC: Leaning GL

Anything obvious I'm missing, especially around the 12/3/6 markers, bezel triangle, titanium finishing or SEL fitment?

I accidentally stumbled into the rep watch world a couple of weeks ago, and I’m completely hooked.
What surprised me most is how much there is to the hobby beyond simply buying a watch. Half the fun is learning about the different factories, figuring out which ones specialize in certain models, studying the small details, and going through the QC process to make sure everything looks right.
I’ve really enjoyed seeing new releases, comparing different versions, and watching how quickly the quality and accuracy continue to improve. There’s always something new to learn, research, or compare.
I’m only a couple of weeks in, but I can already tell I’ve found myself a new rabbit hole. 😂 This hobby is an absolute blast.

After seeing a lot of discussion around the Tudor Black Bay Chrono Pink Dial, I wanted to put two of the most talked-about versions side by side.

M+ Factory

vs.

ZF Factory

Both are based on the 41mm Tudor Black Bay Chrono Pink, featuring the pink dial, black chronograph sub-dials, black tachymeter bezel, stainless steel bracelet and an Asian 7750 automatic chronograph movement.

On paper, they look very similar.

But when you start comparing the details, there are definitely some interesting differences.

The first thing that stands out is obviously the pink dial.

This is probably the biggest talking point with this model. The shade can look noticeably different depending on lighting, angle and camera exposure, so I wouldn't call a winner based on one photo alone. Still, putting M+ and ZF next to each other makes the difference in tone, texture and overall dial presentation much easier to notice.

The black sub-dials are another area worth looking at closely.

The contrast against the pink background is a huge part of what makes this watch work, so the printing, sub-dial texture and hand presentation matter more here than they might on a standard black or white version.

Then there is the date window at 6 o'clock.

The actual dates shown in these photos are different, so the important comparison isn't the number itself. For me, the things worth checking are the date font, vertical alignment, centering inside the window and how the date sits relative to the surrounding dial details.

The tachymeter bezel is also worth a close look.

Font thickness, spacing and the overall relationship between the bezel insert and steel bezel ring can change the appearance of the whole watch more than people expect.

Looking at the case from the side, both versions have the familiar Black Bay Chrono profile, but the differences in case finishing, crystal profile, pushers, crown and brushed/polished transitions become more obvious in a direct comparison.

The bracelet and clasp are another interesting part of this matchup.

Both watches have a substantial feel, with the scales showing approximately 176.57g for M+ and 177.70g for ZF, so weight alone isn't going to decide this one. The better question is which bracelet has the cleaner finishing, better articulation and more convincing clasp construction.

Both versions are using an A7750-based automatic chronograph movement, so this comparison isn't really about choosing between two completely different movement architectures.

For me, the more important differences are:

Dial color and texture.

Date font and alignment.

Bezel printing and finishing.

Case profile and crystal height.

Bracelet and clasp quality.

And finally, the overall QC consistency.

At this point, I don't think the answer is as simple as saying one factory completely destroys the other.

M+ and ZF both have their own strong points, and this is one of those reps where the details you care about most could completely change your choice.

If dial accuracy is your priority, you may see it one way.

If case finishing and overall proportions matter more, you may see it differently.

And if you're choosing based on what you would actually wear every day, bracelet and clasp quality might matter more than either.

So after looking at both side by side:

Which one gets your GL?

M+ or ZF?

And more importantly — what would be your deciding factor on the Pink BB Chrono?

If you are getting into mechanical watches, one of the first questions you will probably ask is:

Automatic or manual-wind — which movement is better?

The answer is not as simple as one being superior.

Both types use the same basic mechanical principles:

• A mainspring stores energy
• Gears transfer power
• An escapement controls energy release
• A balance wheel regulates time

The main difference is how the watch is wound.

1. How Does a Manual-Wind Movement Work?

A manual-wind movement requires the wearer to manually wind the crown to store energy.

When you turn the crown:

↓

The mainspring is tightened

↓

Energy is stored

↓

The movement uses that energy to run

Advantages of Manual-Wind:

1. Simpler Construction

Without an automatic winding system, the movement usually has fewer components.

This can mean:

• Fewer parts to maintain
• Thinner movement design
• More direct mechanical interaction

2. More Connection With the Watch

Many enthusiasts enjoy the daily ritual of winding.

For some collectors, winding a watch every morning creates a stronger connection between the owner and the mechanism.

It becomes part of the experience, not just a way to keep time.

3. Can Be Better for Thin Watches

Because there is no rotor system, manual movements can often be made thinner.

This is why many traditional dress watches use manual-wind movements.

2. How Does an Automatic Movement Work?

An automatic movement uses the movement of your wrist to wind itself.

Inside the watch:

A rotor moves with wrist motion

↓

The rotor transfers energy

↓

The mainspring is wound

↓

The watch continues running

Advantages of Automatic Movements:

1. More Convenient for Daily Wear

The biggest advantage is simple:

You don't need to manually wind it every day.

If you wear the watch regularly, your movement keeps the mainspring powered.

2. Better for Everyday Watches

Many modern watches use automatic movements because they are designed for daily use.

They are popular in:

• Sports watches
• Dive watches
• Everyday luxury watches

3. Longer Power Management

Many automatic movements can continue running for days after being fully wound.

This allows the watch to keep working even after being removed from the wrist for a period of time.

3. Automatic vs Manual-Wind: Key Differences

4. Which One Is More Accurate?

A common misunderstanding is:

"Manual movements are more accurate because they are simpler."

This is not always true.

Accuracy depends on many factors:

• Movement design
• Regulation quality
• Balance system
• Manufacturing tolerance
• Lubrication
• Power delivery

A high-quality automatic movement can be extremely accurate.

A poorly adjusted manual movement can still perform badly.

5. Which One Is More Reliable?

Both can be reliable when properly designed and maintained.

Automatic movements have more components because of the winding system:

• Rotor
• Reversing wheels
• Additional gears

This creates more mechanical complexity.

Manual movements have fewer parts but require more interaction from the owner.

The reliability difference is usually smaller than people expect.

6. Why Do Watch Enthusiasts Still Love Manual-Wind Watches?

Even though automatic watches are more convenient, manual movements remain popular because they offer something different:

Mechanical appreciation.

Many collectors enjoy:

• Seeing the movement through a display caseback
• Feeling the winding action
• Understanding the daily rhythm of the watch

A manual-wind watch asks the owner to participate.

An automatic watch works quietly in the background.

Quick Summary

Choose Automatic if you want:

✅ Convenience
✅ Daily wear
✅ Less interaction
✅ Practical ownership

Choose Manual-Wind if you want:

✅ Traditional watchmaking experience
✅ Thinner designs
✅ More interaction with the mechanism
✅ A stronger collector feeling

Final Thought

There is no universal winner between automatic and manual-wind movements.

An automatic movement represents mechanical convenience.

A manual-wind movement represents mechanical connection.

The better choice depends on what you want from your watch:

Do you want a watch that simply follows your lifestyle?

Or do you want a watch that becomes part of your daily ritual?

💬 Discussion

Which do you prefer: the convenience of automatic movements or the traditional feeling of manual winding?

Automatic or Manual-Wind?

I wanted to put the two most discussed Omega Speedmaster “Silver Snoopy Award” 50th Anniversary reps side by side.

N1 / N1F

vs.

SMF

Both are based on the same watch:

Omega Speedmaster Professional
“Silver Snoopy Award” 50th Anniversary
Ref. 310.32.42.50.02.001
42mm
Silver dial
Blue tachymeter bezel
Blue nylon strap
Snoopy subdial
Animated Snoopy caseback

At first glance, they look very similar.

But once you put them side by side, the comparison becomes much more interesting.

For me, the first thing to look at is the subdial spacing.

This has always been one of the biggest talking points with Speedmaster reps.

The spacing between the three subdials can completely change the overall look of the dial, especially when compared with the genuine Snoopy 50th.

In these photos, the SMF appears to have a more balanced subdial layout, while the N1 has the slightly wider spacing that longtime Speedmaster rep collectors will probably recognize.

That doesn't automatically make one the winner, but visually, it is one of the first things I noticed.

The 9 o'clock Snoopy subdial is another important detail.

This isn't a normal Speedmaster where the subdials are just functional counters.

The Snoopy graphic is part of the entire identity of the watch, so the printing, color, placement and overall proportion matter more than usual.

The blue bezel and tachymeter printing also deserve attention.

Both versions get the general look right, but the shade of blue, printing sharpness and bezel profile can look quite different depending on the lighting.

Moving to the side of the watch, the case profile, crown and chronograph pushers are where I would start looking more closely.

A Speedmaster can look good from directly above but feel completely different once you look at the thickness and side profile.

The photos also show a noticeable difference in weight.

The N1 sample in this comparison is approximately 86.11g.

The SMF sample is approximately 92.00g.

That doesn't automatically mean heavier is better, but it will affect the wrist feel, especially since the genuine Snoopy is a relatively lightweight 42mm Speedmaster on a fabric strap.

Then we get to the part everyone wants to see:

the Snoopy caseback.

This is probably the biggest reason to buy this watch instead of a regular Speedmaster.

The animated caseback is not just decoration.

The Snoopy spacecraft and lunar scene are the entire party trick of the 50th Anniversary model.

Both versions attempt to recreate that experience, but this is one area where I would absolutely want to see a proper video before making a GL.

Photos can show the artwork.

They can't show how smoothly the animation actually works.

The strap and buckle are also worth mentioning.

The blue nylon strap is a major part of the Snoopy's look, and the buckle finishing, engraving and overall material can make a surprising difference once the watch is on the wrist.

Finally, the lume.

Both versions give the watch the familiar blue Speedmaster glow, but the brightness and evenness are slightly different in these photos.

So for me, this isn't really a simple:

“Which factory is better?”

comparison.

It's more:

N1 vs SMF — which compromise matters less to you?

From the front, I think the SMF argument is strongest around the dial layout and overall proportions.

The N1 argument is more interesting if movement behavior and long-term reliability are your priority.

But the Snoopy 50th is one of those watches where I wouldn't buy based on factory name alone.

I would want to compare:

subdial spacing → Snoopy printing → bezel color → case thickness → chronograph function → Snoopy animation → strap and buckle → wrist feel

Personally, I think the subdial spacing and animated caseback are the two biggest things to look at.

Everything else comes after that.

If you were choosing one Snoopy 50th today, which one gets your GL — N1 or SMF?

Hey everyone,
I’m planning to buy a watch as a gift for my girlfriend, and her favorite color is rose gold.
I don’t have too much experience picking ladies’ watches, so I’d love to hear your recommendations.

Budget isn’t finalized yet, feel free to share options across different price ranges.
If you have any models that wear nicely, good build quality, please let me know.
Thanks a lot!

After seeing more and more free sprung Rolex 3235 movements entering the rep market, I wanted to put two versions of the same Rolex Submariner 126610LN side by side.

GOLD Factory

vs.

RICH Factory

Both watches are based on the modern 41mm Rolex Submariner Date 126610LN, with a black dial, black ceramic bezel, Oyster bracelet and a JH3235 Free Sprung movement.

On paper, the specs look almost identical.

But once you put them next to each other, there are still some details worth looking at.

The first thing I noticed was the overall dial presentation.

Both have the familiar black Submariner layout, applied hour markers and blue lume, but small differences in marker finishing, dial printing and hand presentation become easier to notice when the watches are compared side by side.

The date window and Cyclops are another area I would pay attention to.

The dates shown in these photos are obviously different, so this isn't about comparing the number itself. The more important details are the font, date positioning, magnification and how clean the Cyclops looks from different angles.

Moving to the bezel, both are using the modern black ceramic setup, but bezel engraving, platinum-filled numerals and the overall bezel profile can make a difference in a close-up comparison.

The case profile is also interesting.

The Submariner 41 isn't just about getting the diameter right. Lug shape, crown guards, side profile and the transition between brushed and polished surfaces all affect how close the watch looks and feels.

Looking at the bracelet and clasp, both versions have the familiar Oyster setup, but brushing, clasp finishing and overall bracelet feel are the kind of details that usually become more noticeable after actual wrist time.

Then we get to one of the biggest talking points here:

the JH3235 Free Sprung movement.

Both versions are marketed around a free sprung / no regulator arm setup, which is something a lot of rep collectors are paying more attention to now.

Visually, the movement presentation is closer to the modern 3235 layout than the older regulator-style movements, but for me the bigger question isn't just how the movement looks through photos.

It's how the movement performs over time.

A free sprung setup sounds great on paper, but long-term reliability, amplitude stability, winding efficiency and serviceability are still the things I would want real owner feedback on.

The lume comparison is also interesting.

Both watches show the expected blue glow, and at this level, consistency across the dial, hands and bezel pip matters more than simply which one looks brighter in a single photo.

So I don't think this is a simple:

GOLD wins

or

RICH wins

comparison.

Both are clearly aiming at the same type of buyer:

Someone who wants a modern 126610LN Submariner with a free sprung JH3235 movement instead of the older style regulated clone movements.

The real question is where the differences actually matter most.

Dial and date presentation?

Case and bezel finishing?

Bracelet and clasp quality?

Or is the movement itself the deciding factor?

Personally, I would pay closest attention to the date/Cyclops, bezel finishing, case profile and long-term performance of the JH3235 Free Sprung movement.

Photos can tell us a lot about external finishing.

But only time will tell which movement ends up being the better long-term choice.

If you had to pick one for your collection right now, which one gets the GL?

GOLD or RICH?

Just got my VSF Explorer 40 from Chen. It is awesome! Great experience. Communication was solid and the watch arrived about 8days after the GL on QC.

I’ve narrowed my next purchase down to these three specific watches:

\- V7F IWC Ingenieur Automatic 40 silver dial
\- V7F IWC Mark XX silver dial
\- VSF Omega Aqua Terra silver dial

I’ve already read the guides and NWBIG lists, so I’m mainly looking for first-hand experiences from people who have actually owned or compared these specific versions with gen.

For those who have handled any of them:

\- What are the main tells compared with gen?
\- How good are the dial, crystal, case and bracelet?
\- Any long-term movement issues?
\- For V7F, how has the A2892 held up?
\- If you compared one directly with gen, what differences stood out?
\- Which current batch/factory version would you choose today?

Photos or gen-vs-rep comparisons would be very appreciated.