Counterfeit, or just variations in Shimano Disc Brake Rotor Packaging?

After Dave’s Tested: Real vs counterfeit Shimano Dura-Ace chains article, it’s been a present thought in my mind when buying any bicycle component “am I getting a counterfeit product?” So when I recently ordered up a couple new disc rotors, I went to a reputable bicycle parts website and pressed the Buy button on two of them.

When they arrived, I noticed a packaging variation that left me wondering is one of these a fake? There was a spot of color on one package, and the same symbol was printed in a grayscale on the other. Lots of images below showing all sides of the box, the rotor, and the weight of the things.

I think I’ve got two genuine components that are simply packaged old vs new stock. If one were a counterfeit, why change the part number from “00” to “01”? I hope.

Couldn’t find much on this topic with Google or AI-powered searching. Wanted to see if anyone could confirm my belief that I’ve got two genuine parts here. And hoping if someone else searches in the future with the same question I’ve got, they can find this post.


What first raised my suspicions. Below the rotor image and to the left of “RT-CL800” there are three segments. On the left, they’re in grayscale. On the right, in a gold color.

Other sides of the packaging. Minor differences on the bottom of each box. And, a change in part number?

  • AW-RTCL80OS-OU-SIC-FSC00
  • AW-RTCL80OS-OU-SIC-FSC01

Similar weights. Ideally means one rotor isn’t made of painted cardboard.

Front of each rotor appears identical.

But on the rear, a difference. At the 3 o’clock position, notice the one rotor has a “3” imprinted and the other a “4”. More evidence of what I hope means this is an incremental revision or branding revision to the rotor.

And finally, what I assume is a unique identifier of the card insert packaging itself? Both rotors had the same value: AW-RT0000S-IN–SIC-FSC00. Was the differing part number “AW-RTCL80OS-OU-SIC-FSC00“ vs “AW-RTCL80OS-OU-SIC-FSC01” seen above indicating the outer packaging was different, while here the similar value indicates the packaging inside is the same? Is “IN” to mean “inside” and “OU” to mean “outside” packaging?

Anyways, if anyone has some insight I’d be curious to know more!

1 Like

The three-segment silver/gold markings are intended to show the tier of the component. The RT-CL800 has always been a “gold” 3/3 tier so it’s odd that there would be a silver 2/3 tier package. The 105-level rotors are marked 2/3.

CL900 should be the 3/3 gold?
CL800 should be the 2/3 silver?

I have a few MT900s to hand and they’ve got the 3/3 gold.

1 Like

Both CL800 and CL900 are 3/3 gold - they’re the same rotor except for the black heat dissipating paint on 900:

2 Likes

The package on the left is older. It’s possible Shimano considered the CL800 second tier purely for the lack of heat shedding coating on the aluminum. You can also see that the package only lists 140 and 160mm rotor sizes as options. The RT-CL series rotors were originally intended only for road and gravel.

Shimano recently expanded the range to include 180 and even 203mm rotors (really should be 200mm, 203 is a remnant from illogical thinking). I believe that the mountain bike RT-MT800 and 900 rotors will be discontinued and superceded by the CL800 and 900, and the recently released 105 level CL700.

TL;DR, Both are genuine.

2 Likes

Thanks, did not know this!