Rolex Yacht-Master 126622 vs. Genuine Rolex

Introduction
Clean Factory (C-Factory) has gained notoriety for its "super clone" Rolex models. Today, we dissect their Yacht-Master 126622 replicas against a genuine reference (serial scrubbed). All observations are macro-photography verified.

1. Case & Bezel​

Detail	Clean Factory	Genuine
Material	904L stainless steel	Rolex Oystersteel (904L)
Bezel	PVD-coated steel (simulates platinum)	Solid platinum
Bezel action	120 clicks, slightly higher-pitched	Silent, butter-smooth rotation
Thickness	12.3mm	12.1mm
Lugs	95% curvature match	Precision-machined contour

Verdict: Visually identical at wrist distance. Thickness difference (0.2mm) is imperceptible without calipers. Bezel engraving depth is 1:1, but platinum weight/feel unmatched.

2. Dial & Hands​

• Sunburst Effect: Clean’s blue dial replicates 98% of genuine’s light refraction; gray dial shows warmer undertone in direct sun.
• Lume: Both use Chromalight-equivalent (C3). Clean’s lume lasts ~22hrs vs. genuine 24hrs.
• Date Wheel: Clean’s font is 5% thicker. Cyclops magnification: 2.5x (Clean) vs. 2.25x (gen).
• Rehaut: "ROLEX" engraving alignment is 90% perfect (minor deviations at 4-5 o’clock).

Verdict: No flaws detectable to naked eye. Requires 5x loupe to spot font/rehaut issues.

3. Bracelet & Clasp​

Component	Clean Factory	Genuine
Links	Solid 904L, correct taper	Identical construction
Clasp Glidelock	Functional, 8/10 smoothness	10/10 hydraulic feel
Engravings	Laser-etched (slightly shallower)	Deep, crisp Rolex coronet
SEL fitment	0.1mm gap vs. gen’s zero gap	Flush integration

Verdict: Clasp mechanism is Clean’s weakest area. Edge polishing lacks Rolex’s refinement.

4. Movement​

• Clean Factory: Shanghai 3235 (decorated)
• Power Reserve: 65hrs (claimed 70hrs)
• Accuracy: +8 to +12 sec/day
• Rotor noise: Audible in quiet rooms
• Genuine: Caliber 3235
• Power Reserve: 70hrs consistent
• Accuracy: -2/+2 sec/day certified
• Silent rotor

Critical Note: Clean’s movement lacks Paraflex shock absorption. Decoration plates mimic aesthetics but not finishing quality under magnification.

5. Key Weaknesses​

• Water Resistance: Clean fails at 75m pressure testing (gen exceeds 100m).
• Caseback: Missing laser-etched crown at 6 o’clock.
• Rotor Weight: Clean’s rotor is lighter, causing occasional wobble.

6. Value Conclusion​

Pros:

• 
  
• 95% visual accuracy for 4% of retail price ($488 vs $12,200).
• True 904L steel and functional complications.
• Best-in-class dial replication.

Cons:

• 
  
• Movement is a "ticking tell" (accuracy/noise).
• No waterproofing reliability.
• Zero resale value vs. Rolex’s investment potential.

Final Rating: 8.5/10
For: Enthusiasts wanting design without debt.
Against: Purists demanding craftsmanship heritage.

Discussion Prompts:​

1. Ethics & Authenticity: Does wearing a 95% accurate replica devalue luxury watches if no one can tell? Where’s the line?
2. Movement Sacrifice: Would you mod Clean’s watch with a Swiss movement? Or accept the Shanghai 3235’s limits?
3. Biggest Tell: Beyond rotor noise, what microscopic flaw would give you pause?
4. Industry Impact: Are "super clones" pushing brands to innovate, or just fueling counterfeits?
5. Ownership Psychology: Does the knowledge that it’s a replica diminish your enjoyment, even if visually perfect?

Let’s hear your thoughts! Have you handled both versions? Share real-world observations below.