TL;DR: on the RM 011 almost everything that shows through the skeleton dial matters, plus the screws and the materials. This thread is about how to read the photos, not about who made a piece.
What I know from a source: Wikipedia (Richard Mille entry) cites the RM 011 Felipe Massa model, including a rose-gold and titanium version (RM11 Felipe Massa Rose Gold and Titanium), and writes that the cases and some movement parts, including screws, bridges and baseplates, are made by ProArt, which belongs to the Richard Mille group. Other specs (sizes, materials per reference, weights) I do not take as given here: I have not checked them.
[[PHOTO: tre foto affiancate di un orologio scheletrato con cassa a botte, dritto, di tre quarti e di profilo, luce diurna, sfondo grigio]]
Editorial summary, not independently verified.
Beginner question: how do you judge the tonneau case in photos? And doesn’t the skeleton dial make everything harder, since you see the mechanisms and there is no pattern to compare?
You are right, and that is why you need an order. For the tonneau case:
- Symmetry: the shape must match left and right; a fuller curve on one side shows in a straight top-down photo.
- Profile: a side photo shows whether the flanks follow the same line from lug to lug.
- Finish: even matte or gloss, without lighter patches near the edges.
The method for asking for useful photos is in How to ask for useful QC photos; it matters here more than elsewhere, because a skewed photo falsifies a curved shape.
The skeleton dial is judged by a different criterion: not “does it match the drawing?”, but “are the parts orderly and consistent?”.
- Bridges and baseplates: clean edges, even chamfers, no coarse machining marks.
- Alignment: do the hour and minute hands point at the centre of their indices or main elements?
- Cleanliness: dust, residue or scratches on the crystal show much more against the open space of a skeleton.
- Consistency: a part that looks a different colour from the others deserves a macro.
A comparison with reference photos always helps, but it has to be with photos of similar quality; see QC checker sites and other people’s photos for what they can and cannot tell you.
The screws, then. People talk about them a lot.
For the screws, in photos:
- Head shape and finish: all matching each other, with the slot well centred.
- Slot orientation: if the bezel or caseback screws have slots oriented at random, or all in the same logic, that is worth noting.
- Damage: a screw with a chewed slot or scratches around it is a sign of poor assembly.
Wikipedia notes that the screws are among the parts made by ProArt for the brand. In a photo, then, screw quality says a lot about overall build quality, but a single out-of-focus screw is not a reason for an RL.
[[PHOTO: macro di una lunetta con le viti, ognuna con il taglio segnato da una freccia e una griglia di riferimento semplice]]
On material and weight: the stated materials (titanium, carbon, rose gold and others, by reference) cannot be checked from a photo. Wikipedia gives weights for other models of the brand (for example 48 g for the RM 006 and 20 g for the RM 027), but not for the RM 011: so no number for this model is taken as true here.
What you can ask for is a kitchen-scale photo with a readable display, with the complete watch or just the strap, and a reference you can cite. A weight without a reference says nothing. For a comparison of shape and measurement, the thread on Royal Oak Offshore 44 mm QC shows how to read screws and bezel on another complex case.
Summary:
- The RM 011 is a Felipe Massa model from Richard Mille; Wikipedia also cites a rose-gold and titanium version. Cases and screws are made by ProArt (Richard Mille group), per Wikipedia.
- Tonneau case: symmetry in a straight top-down photo, side profile, even finish.
- Skeleton dial: clean and consistent bridges and baseplates, aligned hands, crystal free of dust or scratches.
- Screws: matching heads, centred undamaged slots; a single out-of-focus screw is not a reason for an RL.
- Material and weight: not checked from photos. You need a scale photo with a readable display and a citable reference.
- If you care how a flyback chronograph is judged on video, there is the thread Flyback chronograph explained.
- A flaw that touches function or that shows at normal viewing distance, such as a hand off axis, is a good reason for an RL.
Photos do not show how the movement behaves over time or how the finish holds up.
Editorial summary, not independently verified.
Agreed. In one line: shape, dial, screws, and weight only with the scale in the photo.