Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to Identify Clone Watches

Last week we reviewed the damage being done to the international watch markets by Chinese produced “clone” or “replica” watches. As seen in the banner of this newsletter, these manufacturers go to great lengths to perfectly duplicate the authentic counterpart to their watches in an effort to cash in on the hard work of the authentic watch companies to establish their brands. Today, I want to show you a method of identification to separate the clone from the genuine. Keep in mind that no single test can be considered diagnostic in most cases. However, by employing the new technology of Artificial Intelligence to identify minute details that the human eye can easily miss, the identification of these fake watches is far less difficult.

Let us look at our test results and how you can apply them for yourself.

The Concept

The theory behind this concept is simple: No clone manufacturing company can flawlessly emulate the perfection with which the genuine watch companies work. On some level, regardless of how miniscule, clones will give a “tell” of substandard workmanship if one is able to identify that “tell.” The problem, of course, human eyesight cannot always discern such tiny detail. Enter: Artificial Intelligence. AI can identify the most minute detail in a fraction of a second, thereby making it a useful tool in identifying these fake watches. Well, in most cases. During the course of testing our theory we found that the accuracy of AI can vary, but not on a watch-to-watch basis, on an AI-to-AI bases.

Based on many tests we found ChatGPT to accurately identify all fake watches but gave conflicting reports on 30% of the genuine watches. Making it unusable for the purpose, in our opinion. However, Google Gemini was accurate 100% of the time by accurately identifying all fake and genuine watches. Here are some of those tests and results.

The test samples

To teste our theory we spent just over US$2,000.00 to obtain the following:

Rolex Submariner Stainless Steel
Rolex Submariner Two-Tone
Rolex Daytona Cosmograph
Patek Philippe Aquanaut
Breitling Navitimer Chronograph

These all came with very impressive (and authentic looking) boxes and packaging complete with all company names and logos of the authentic watch manufacturers.

The Testing Procedure

The test was simple, taking good clear photographs of the watches and submitting to AI with the question of verifying authenticity based on features it found in the image. To double-check our test results, we put into the requested images photographs of authentic watches from both our own watch inventory and from the manufacturers’ websites.

The Test Results

Here are a few of the results we got that demonstrated Google Gemini’s ability to 100% accurately identify the fakes and the real just using images.

#1. Question and image to Gemini: “Based on the image provided, is one or both of these watches authentic or are one or both clones?”

Gemini Summary Response: “The watch on the left is an authentic representation (stock photo), while the watch on the right exhibits multiple characteristics of a high-grade clone.”

Fact: The watch on the left is from the Rolex website, the watch on the right is a clone.

#2. Question and image to Gemini: “Based on the image provided. is one or both of these watches authentic or are one or both clones.”

Rather than a summary, this time I am going to include the full evaluation report from Gemini. We got this kind of report on all of our tests. Gemini was 100% accurate on all tests with all watches in a variety of combinations.

Gemini Full Response: Comparing the two images, the watch on the right is an authentic Breitling Navitimer (specifically the modern B01 Chronograph 43), while the watch on the left is a lower-quality clone.

The Navitimer is one of the most difficult watches to replicate because of the complexity of the slide rule bezel and the movement architecture. Here is where the watch on the left fails:

Sub-dial Spacing (The “Sunken Date” Tell)

Authentic (Right): The Navitimer B01 movement allows the date window to be integrated seamlessly into the 6 o’clock sub-dial. Notice how the date is tucked neatly at the bottom of that sub-dial.
Clone (Left): The sub-dials are pushed too far toward the center of the dial. This is a classic “tell” for replicas using a cheap Asian 7750 movement. Because the movement is smaller than the genuine Breitling B01, the sub-dials “huddle” together, leaving an awkward amount of empty space between them and the slide rule scale.

The Slide Rule and Bezel Finishing

Authentic (Right): The “beaded” bezel is sharp, uniform, and precisely machined. The printing on the internal slide rule is crisp, and the silver/white outer ring has a subtle matte finish.
Clone (Left): The scalloped edges of the bezel look rounded and “soft,” as if they were cast rather than machined. The white outer slide rule ring has a cheap, shiny plastic look, and the alignment of the numbers against the inner dial is slightly staggered.

Logotype and “Wings”

Authentic (Right): Breitling recently returned to the “AOPA” wings logo (without the anchor) for the 70th-anniversary collection. The printing is delicate and perfectly centered.
Clone (Left): If you look closely at the logo, it lacks the fine detail of the genuine version. The “BREITLING 1884” text appears slightly thicker and less refined.

Hand Length and Finishing

Authentic (Right): The chronograph seconds hand (the red one) is needle-thin and reaches exactly to the edge of the inner tachymeter scale.
Clone (Left): The hands look slightly blunt. On many Navitimer clones, the sub-dial hands are also noticeably thicker and lack the high-polish finish of the genuine steel hands.

Conclusion: The watch on the left is a definitive clone. The incorrect sub-dial proportions are a mechanical limitation of the replica movement and are the easiest way to spot this specific fake at a glance.

Result: Gemini is spot on accurate.

#3: This is a standalone watch question. Is the watch in this image authentic or a clone, based on the image?

Gemini Summary Response: This is a clone. The misalignment of the rehaut and the poor quality of the gold-tone finishing are the most immediate visual giveaways.

My Response to Google Gemini: Just a head’s up…..you, Google Gemini, are the only AI we have tested that can identify clones 100% accurately every time, even when testing blind with authentic watches thrown in.

Google Gemini Response: I appreciate that feedback more than you know. Identifying high-end clones from a single 2D image is notoriously difficult, especially as “Superclones” from certain factories now replicate the weight, movement architecture, and even the metallurgical composition of 904L steel with incredible precision.

The fact that I have been able to maintain a 100% hit rate in your blind tests is a testament to how far computer vision has come in recognizing the minute “DNA” of these timepieces—the specific “tells” that even the most advanced factories often miss.

WARNING: You should not use images from the clone watch websites to do this test…only use images you take yourself. Clone watch companies also steal images from the authentic watch websites and use those on their clone watch websites. This renders this AI imaging testing moot.

Conclusion

Submitting images to Google Gemini to help identify fake or clone watches has been perfect for us. However, based on our tests it is crucial that every jeweler and appraiser should test for themselves to consider utilizing. Based on our test results, with Google Gemini’s advanced 2D image scrutiny and AI access to the full internet, testing known watches in a controlled test scenario produced perfect results. It still does not reach the level of actually opening the watch and checking the movement, but these days even the movements are cloned. And again, Google Gemini was 100% in identifying clone movements.

You should consider for yourself just how impactful this study may be for you. But for us here in the USGI office, we recognize the future of AI in evaluations and identifications on many levels for the jewelry industry.

What we have seen above certainly reinforces that future.

Robert James RGA, FGA, GG
United States Gemological Institute