Reviews
VSF vs Clean Submariner Review: Bezel Pearls, 3235 Claims and Clasp Codes
VSF vs Clean Submariner comparison: revised bezel pearls, metal bezel profiles, attributed 3235 movements, clasp codes and sample-specific QC limits.
- Review date
- Unknown
- Page updated
- Last verified
On this page
Original video
Video chapters
Key facts
| Field | Value | Assertion nature | Editorial verification | Source type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| comparison.pearl_tone | Reviewer finds Clean more yellow and VSF closer to a genuine watch he previously handled; no genuine control or color measurement. | CLAIMED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| comparison.pearl_revision | Older and revised VSF pearls are compared; reviewer describes the revision as rounder and less chalky-white. No aging or luminous-decay test. | REPORTED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| supplier.insert_claim | Shared Clean insert sourcing in the older comparison is reviewer knowledge, not independent supplier verification. | CLAIMED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| identification.limits | Reviewer explicitly warns that copied or changed codes cannot prove factory identity. | REPORTED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| identity.designs | Date/Cyclops lineup visually corresponds to 116610LV Hulk, 116610LN, 126610LV and 126610LN designs; reference engravings and dimensions not authenticated. | REPORTED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| identification.clasp_codes | F80 and 3VV are shown in clasp-code contexts, not unique watch serials. Source terminology is normalized. | OBSERVED | CORRECTED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
| comparison.bezel_profile | Pointer comparison isolates metal bezel edge projection; reviewer prefers VSF. No dimensional measurement. | REPORTED | CONFIRMED | VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT |
Detailed review
What this comparison establishes
The most useful difference in this VSF-versus-Clean comparison is the bezel pearl, not a universal factory ranking. The reviewer contrasts a pale older VSF pearl with a rounder revised example, then judges the Clean sample more yellow than the genuine watch he remembers handling. He also points out the projecting edge of the metal bezel and discusses two different 3235 movements. These are distinct kinds of evidence: visible sample details, remembered genuine-watch comparisons and unmeasured movement claims.
Identify the reference before comparing the factory
The lineup contains date watches with a Cyclops magnifier: green dial/green bezel, black dial/green bezel and black dial/black bezel configurations. The green-dial watch corresponds to the 116610LV Hulk design; the black-dial green-bezel watch corresponds to 126610LV, commonly called Starbucks. The older and newer black examples correspond to 116610LN and 126610LN respectively. These are visual design identifications, supported by the reviewer's older/newer grouping, not authenticated reference engravings or measured case diameters. No No-Date Submariner is established by this lineup.
The 116610LV Hulk context and 116610LN context separate the older designs from 126610LV and 126610LN. Rolex's 2020 Submariner documentation specifies the newer genuine Submariner Date's 41 mm case and calibre 3235. Those specifications do not certify the replica samples. The older 116610LN design is also documented in a physical-watch catalogue record.
Two naming systems overlap in the narration. “Second generation” and “third generation” describe the reviewer's model grouping; “V1” and “V2” describe his VSF revision claims within that discussion. Neither is a standardized Rolex generation name. “V2 Return of the King” is the reviewer's label for the revised VSF offering, not a verified production date, current specification or independently documented factory release.
Key takeaways
The revised VSF pearl is presented as rounder and less chalky-white than the older VSF example. The reviewer considers the shown Clean pearl too yellow, but supplies no genuine control watch in that comparison.
The metal bezel's projecting edge is a separate detail from the ceramic insert. The reviewer prefers the VSF profile on the shown newer pair; there is no dimensional measurement establishing the amount of projection.
For the newer generation, he attributes Dandong 3235 to VSF and Shanghai 3235 to Clean. His approximately 72-hour versus 42-hour reserve figures are spoken claims, not recorded run-down tests.
F80, 3VV and 7JG are discussed while clasps are displayed. They should be described as clasp codes here, not unique watch serial numbers. The reviewer explicitly warns that copied or changed markings cannot establish factory identity alone.
Bezel pearl: shape, daylight tone and comparison limits
From roughly 02:09 to 03:09, the reviewer alternates between older and revised VSF examples. He describes the older pearl as excessively pale and the revision as more rounded, with a slightly warmer appearance. His statement that the old pearl becomes whiter with wear is an experience-based claim; the recording does not follow the same watch through an aging test.
The side-by-side green-bezel comparison around 03:26–04:24 then shifts to VSF versus Clean. The pearl is the luminous dot at the bezel's zero marker, also called the lume pip. This is a daylight appearance comparison. It does not measure luminous output or how long the material remains visible in darkness.
The reviewer says his friend's genuine watch had a pearl tone closer to the VSF sample. That recollection helps explain his preference but is not a controlled genuine-versus-replica test. Lighting, white balance, reflections and viewing angle can change apparent whiteness or yellowing. Request both samples under the same neutral light, including a close view of the pearl's dome and metal surround. Do not turn this recording into a rule that every Clean pearl is wrong or every VSF pearl is a perfect match.
Metal bezel profile and ceramic insert are different questions
Around 05:12–05:39, a pointer isolates the edge of the metal bezel. The reviewer describes the Clean example as less prominent and the VSF edge as closer to the genuine construction he knows. The visible comparison supports examining that profile; it does not supply caliper readings, tolerance limits or a parts-interchangeability test.
Later, in the older-generation comparison, he says the two ceramic inserts come from Clean and considers their fonts very similar. Treat that as a supplier attribution and visual assessment. Similar engraving does not independently prove shared manufacture, identical ceramic composition or equal resistance to wear. The introductory supplier history is not used here as a verified production record.
Dandong versus Shanghai 3235: what this source actually supports
At 04:47–04:58, the reviewer assigns Shanghai 3235 and about 42 hours of reserve to Clean, versus Dandong 3235 and about 72 hours to VSF. The Dandong 3235 record uses DD3235 and VS3235 as community terminology for this attributed movement family. The Shanghai 3235 record preserves the source's wording. The narration alone does not establish an exact SH/VR variant, so this article does not silently replace “Shanghai” with a more specific movement designation.
The introductory discussion also names Dandong 3135 in the earlier VSF history. It is not a claim that every watch on the table contains the same calibre. Nor should a genuine Rolex 3235 specification be transferred to a replica bearing a similar label.
The supplied English TXT ends mid-sentence at 10:40.940, while the unchanged video runs about 19:58. This article's narrated technical conclusions are restricted to the supplied text and checked corresponding scenes. Later footage includes exposed movements, but the missing English continuation prevents treating that later sequence as a fully reconciled movement comparison. The 72/42-hour figures therefore remain reviewer claims. No measured reserve or reliability result is established by the evidence used for this article.
Clasp codes, rehaut markings and version identification
The newer-pair clasp sequence attributes F80 to Clean and 3VV to VSF. In the older-pair sequence, VSF is attributed 7JG. The supplied TXT calls another Clean code “1LD,” while the embedded English subtitle reads “ELD”; glare and the available view do not justify resolving that character by assumption. The reviewer also mentions 7CD. These older Clean codes are not used as authenticated batch identifiers here.
Separately, he discusses U9M5 and W9 in the watch-serial context. A rehaut serial is on the inner flange around the dial; it is not the short code stamped inside a clasp. Claims about a code being discontinued or identifying old stock refer to the recording's unknown date. They are not a current inventory rule.
An owner discussion about changing VSF clasp codes includes F80 and 3VV reports under different factory and batch labels, with conflicting descriptions of clasp feel. This supports treating codes as clues requiring corroboration, not as an authentication database. The reviewer reaches the same practical limit: other makers can copy markings.
A sample-specific QC checklist
Confirm the dial/bezel configuration and older or newer reference design first. Then request neutral-light pearl photos, an oblique bezel-edge view, readable clasp and rehaut markings, and exact movement documentation for the offered watch. Inspect bracelet articulation, clasp closure, adjustment operation and solid end-link fit individually; the reviewer's broad praise for both bracelets does not measure those tolerances.
A 126610LN community comparison raises crystal reflections, dial-marker placement and movement-label questions. These are useful inspection topics, not measured findings from this video. Check Cyclops alignment, date centering and readability on your sample. The supplied text starts a laser-etched crown discussion but cuts off before the explanation finishes; no crystal-authenticity conclusion is drawn from that incomplete passage.
The reviewer prefers his revised VSF examples for pearl appearance and bezel profile. That is a component-based assessment of this recording, not evidence of universal superiority or a failure-rate comparison. Use the VS Factory and Clean Factory records for attribution context, then verify the actual watch rather than relying on its label.
Sources & provenance
Strengths
Side-by-side pearl and bezel-profile views; clear distinction between clasp codes and watch serials.
What to watch for
Exact batches unknown. TXT ends at 10:40.940; later footage is outside the reconciled English source. No measured reserve, genuine-control color test or reliability result. Older Clean clasp code differs between TXT and embedded subtitle.
Movement summary
Dandong 3235 / DD3235 / VS3235 and Shanghai 3235 — oral attributions; exact Clean SH/VR variant unconfirmed
Questions answered
Which references does the lineup correspond to?
The visible date-watch configurations correspond to 116610LV Hulk, 116610LN, 126610LV and 126610LN designs. Reference correspondence is an editorial visual identification, not an authenticated engraving or measurement.
Does V2 mean the same thing as third generation?
No. The reviewer uses V1/V2 for VSF revision claims while also grouping older and newer Submariner designs as second and third generation. A V2 label alone does not establish reference, movement or production date.
Were the 72-hour and 42-hour power reserves tested?
No timed run-down test is established by the source material used for this article. Those figures are the reviewer's spoken claims for Dandong and Shanghai 3235 respectively.
Can F80 or 3VV prove the factory?
No. They are clasp codes in this comparison, not unique watch serials. Codes can change or be copied, and community reports describe overlapping use. Corroborate markings with the complete sample and movement evidence.
Does the pearl comparison prove equal or better night visibility?
No. The relevant scenes compare shape and daylight tone. They do not establish luminous output, decay duration or equivalence to a genuine watch.
Is the English source complete?
The supplied TXT stops at 10:40.940 during the laser-etched crown explanation. The full original video remains available unchanged. Narrated conclusions in this article are limited to the supplied English passages and their checked scenes.
Transcript
VSF and Clean comparison; mixed date-watch designs 00:00:00,320–00:00:08,710
Hello everyone, this is Mingjiang. In this review, we're comparing the Submariner from C Factory with the V2 'Return of the King' edition from VS Factory.
Source typeReviewer-described revised VSF pearl 00:02:21,540–00:02:27,780
Now, the VS Factory has upgraded to the V2 version, and its lume pip is much more rounded.
Source typeGenuine pearl comparison recalled by reviewer 00:03:46,680–00:03:56,620
I previously handled a friend's genuine second-generation Submariner, and I noticed that the C Factory lume pip is a bit too yellow. The genuine one is not that yellow.
Source typeClean Shanghai 3235 and untested reserve claim 00:04:47,680–00:04:52,600
The C Factory uses a Shanghai 3235 movement, and its power reserve is only 42 hours.
Source typeVSF Dandong 3235 and untested reserve claim 00:04:52,980–00:04:58,400
The VS Factory uses a Dandong 3235 movement, and its power reserve is around 72 hours.
Source typeMetal bezel edge profile comparison 00:05:15,100–00:05:22,480
Let me show you. The C Factory's bezel edge here appears somewhat shortened.
Source typeF80 shown in a clasp-code context 00:06:23,540–00:06:27,420
This one is F80. The serial number on the C Factory is F80.
Source type3VV shown in a clasp-code context 00:06:57,280–00:06:59,380
It's a 3VV serial number.
Source typeOlder VSF V1 versus V2 terminology 00:07:33,120–00:07:41,600
For the second generation, I feel this is the old version, which is the V1 version of the second-generation VS Factory Submariner.
Source typeShared insert sourcing: reviewer claim 00:08:16,560–00:08:21,280
The bezel inserts are both Clean Factory inserts, so the inserts are the same.
Source type7JG shown in a clasp-code context 00:08:42,400–00:08:47,440
This is from VS Factory. The serial number on the VS Factory is a 7JG prefix.
Source typeReviewer warns that codes cannot authenticate origin 00:09:31,240–00:09:43,000
But don't assume that a specific serial number guarantees it's from a certain factory. You can't identify them that way because serial numbers can be changed, and other factories will copy the serial numbers of C Factory.
Source typeFactory versions
Factory versions
Clean Submariner — Review 006 Configuration
Newer black-dial green-bezel 126610LV-style comparison sample; reviewer-attributed Shanghai 3235, exact variant unknown.
Factory versions
VSF Submariner V2 — Review 006 Attribution
Newer black-dial green-bezel 126610LV-style sample, revised pearl; reviewer-attributed Dandong 3235.
Watches
Watches
Submariner 116610LN: Review Configuration Context
Older black-dial, black-bezel Submariner Date design; visual correspondence in Review 006, not an authenticated reference engraving.
Watches
Submariner 126610LV: Review Configuration Context
Newer black-dial, green-bezel Submariner Date design; visual correspondence in Review 006, not an authenticated reference engraving.
Watches
Submariner 126610LN: Review Configuration Context
Newer black-dial, black-bezel Submariner Date design; visual correspondence in Review 006, not an authenticated reference engraving.
Watches
Submariner 116610LV: Review Configuration Context
Older green-dial, green-bezel Hulk design; visual correspondence in Review 006, not an authenticated reference engraving.
Factories
Factories
Clean Factory: GMT Review Evidence
Clean Factory terminology and the scope of the evidence in Review 001.
Factories
VS Factory: Pepsi GMT Review Evidence
VS Factory / VSF terminology and the source limits of the Pepsi GMT review.
Movements
Movements
Dandong 3235 / VS3235: Review Attribution
VSF newer-generation movement attributed by the reviewer to Dandong 3235; the stated reserve is not a timed test.
Movements
Shanghai 3235: Clean Review Attribution
Clean newer-generation movement called Shanghai 3235 by the reviewer; exact SH/VR variant is not established.
Current status
Review 006 checked against the supplied English TXT and relevant frames. Original video unchanged. Public text contains no commercial comparison.
Sources & provenance
Evidence coverage: 14
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:00:00,320–00:00:08,710
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:02:21,540–00:02:27,780
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:03:46,680–00:03:56,620
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:04:47,680–00:04:52,600
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:04:52,980–00:04:58,400
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:05:15,100–00:05:22,480
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:06:23,540–00:06:27,420
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:06:57,280–00:06:59,380
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:07:33,120–00:07:41,600
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:08:16,560–00:08:21,280
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:08:42,400–00:08:47,440
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:09:31,240–00:09:43,000
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:00:02,120–00:00:07,890
- VIDEO_AND_TRANSCRIPT · FIRST_PARTY · CONFIRMED 00:00:02,150–00:00:08,790
Update history
This section has no approved content yet.
Ask an Expert
Ask an Expert
Choose a version or continue with this research page.