Thin case 1665 DRSD

[MD.]

Hello fellow vintage obsessives!

I have been hunting for a tropical dial DRSD for a while. I am planning to keep my next grail piece forever - that's the plan at least!

This thin case example has caught my eye and I would appreciate your input.
From my own observations:

1. The dial: MK2 (2.9mil) and appears to be in mint condition and matches the age/serial of the dial and it has aged to a tropical/chocolate colour as is common with the MK2. No peeling that I can see

2. Caseback: Pristine with matching serial. Engraves production date of IV.67 which is period correct. Some service inscriptions noted.

3. Movement: Movement is 1575 but correctly labelled 1570

4. Case: Now according to DRSD.com, the MK2 has a serial range of 1.6-3.5 with thin cases ranging from 1.6-2.2. This is where I am unsure, as I have read online that thin cases could go up to 2.9 - so which is correct? Can thin cases have 2.9 as is the case with this watch?

With DRSD, the dial is everything but as my good friend Mr Filipao has pointed out to me one should not forget the all important case condition in these thin case examples and it seems the case has seen some light polishing in the past but not much. Lugs also appear good.

5. Crystal: Service plexi

6: Bracelet: 9315 with both 380 and 580 links?

7. UV video looks OK to me. Please see video below.

8. The set: Has box + double punched papers (including punched warrantly booket). No serial on hangtag.

I have attached photos below and the UV video.

Once again, I appreciate your input and I hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend






















Not sure how to embed video on here but here is link to the UV video:
https://streamable.com/emy513

[hutch300]

I don't know enough on this model to be helpful. My main observation is the brushing looks like a bad DIY job. I would plan on a sympathetic polish job if it was me.

[swish77]

Stunning-looking watch and set, although I don't love the case, especially the lugs. The polishing jobs does not look well done. (UV video looks good.)

For a high-end piece like this, I'd want a true DRSD expert to look it over. Ed from DRSD.com is helpful when he has the time. I might have him chime in, especially on the case/serial-number discrepancy.

[MD.]

Originally Posted by swish77

Stunning-looking watch and set, although I don't love the case, especially the lugs. The polishing jobs does not look well done. (UV video looks good.)

For a high-end piece like this, I'd want a true DRSD expert to look it over. Ed from DRSD.com is helpful when he has the time. I might have him chime in, especially on the case/serial-number discrepancy.

Thanks for your comment.
What about the polishing do you not like? Over-polished?


If Ed could chime in that would be very much appreciated!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by swish77

For a high-end piece like this, I'd want a true DRSD expert to look it over.

This is why certain vintage pieces must have that next-level scrutiny. When you get into the stratosphere of asking prices, no way would I touch anything without this kind of analysis being done by someone who knows these watches inside and out.

Thank you, Jose.

[karleone]

I agree on the case. The polishing job was not great: the lugs are thin, brushing is not near rolex factory finish. All the set is cool and the dial is nice but I would rather have a better condition case and not the set

[saxo3]

I have seen two stunning 1665 Mk2 thin case DRSD's, both 2.9xx.xxx serial with IV/67 casebacks, one w/ the other w/o papers.

[KY..]

I’ll be a master of the obvious.
Looks like the bracelet got the garage polish treatment at the same time as the case.
And the date is off so a legitimate vintage service may be in order.
Will the price make sense after you factor in the extra coin you may spend on it, and will you be satisfied?
Any answer besides hell yes is a no go for buying…

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by ky..

Will the price make sense after you factor in the extra coin you may spend on it, and will you be satisfied?

110'000.- €
https://www.wristicons.com/rolex-166...-tropical.html

[swish77]

Originally Posted by saxo3

110'000.- €
https://www.wristicons.com/rolex-166...-tropical.html

Crazy money for that watch, IMHO.

[Arnozerosix]

Originally Posted by swish77

Crazy money for that watch, IMHO.

i can't believe some dealers are still presenting watches at such price without even priori servicing....

[HERITAGE82]

Beautiful watch, but the over polished lugs are hard to look at

[pereztroika]

Here's something for you to consider before you pull the trigger. First, a watch with the same case number 2926896 was sold at Sotheby's in 2016. At first glance, it's not the same watch (different dial, insert and crown guard):

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions.../lot.2211.html


Unfortunately, Sotheby's messed around with their archive so that now only one picture of the watch is available online. However, I saved all pictures from the original listing. The caseback is engraved with the same three digits. See for yourself. Then there is a discrepancy with the case number engravings which look nothing like the ones you would expect in this range.




Also, check the ouside of the caseback. The little hole above the S of OYSTER is missing.


Cheers
Jose

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Here's something for you to consider before you pull the trigger. First, a watch with the same case number 2926896 was sold at Sotheby's in 2016. At first glance, it's not the same watch (different dial, insert and crown guard):

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions.../lot.2211.html


Unfortunately, Sotheby's messed around with their archive so that now only one picture of the watch is available online. However, I saved all pictures from the original listing. The caseback is engraved with the same three digits. See for yourself. Then there is a discrepancy with the case number engravings which look nothing like the ones you would expect in this range.




Also, check the ouside of the caseback. The little hole above the S of OYSTER is missing.


Cheers
Jose

That’s an interesting revelation.

[MD.]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Here's something for you to consider before you pull the trigger. First, a watch with the same case number 2926896 was sold at Sotheby's in 2016. At first glance, it's not the same watch (different dial, insert and crown guard):

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions.../lot.2211.html


Unfortunately, Sotheby's messed around with their archive so that now only one picture of the watch is available online. However, I saved all pictures from the original listing. The caseback is engraved with the same three digits. See for yourself. Then there is a discrepancy with the case number engravings which look nothing like the ones you would expect in this range.




Also, check the ouside of the caseback. The little hole above the S of OYSTER is missing.


Cheers
Jose

Thanks for the info. That is very interesting indeed. Not sure what is going on to be honest. Do we suspect foul play here?

[pereztroika]

Originally Posted by MD.

Thanks for the info. That is very interesting indeed. Not sure what is going on to be honest. Do we suspect foul play here?

There is definitely something weird going on imo. The area around the valve looks awkward compared to other pieces in this range.




The engravings between the lugs at 12 o'clock appear to be considerably larger and the typeface is off. Check the G of Registered for instance. The caseback knurling looks odd too in comparison.




Cheers
Jose

[MD.]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

There is definitely something weird going on imo. The area around the valve looks awkward compared to other pieces in this range.




The engravings between the lugs at 12 o'clock appear to be considerably larger and the typeface is off. Check the G of Registered for instance. The caseback knurling looks odd too in comparison.




Cheers
Jose

Thank you Jose. You’re a life saver.
Not going to lie but I was very close to pulling the trigger on this and would have lost a lot of hard earned money that took many years to build up. I’m glad I listened to my good friends’ advice Mr Filipao, to ask on here before proceeding.

The seller has reached out and apologised for not doing the due diligence on the watch before listing.

It has always been a dream of mine to get a tropical dial of this reference or from 1680.
I thought that paying extra and finding the expert would alleviate some of the dangers in the vintage world - an important lesson was learnt.

Nevertheless, this is a marathon and half the fun is in the hunt. The quest continues!


Also, this community is amazing and I want to thank everyone who commented so far!

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by MD.

Thank you Jose. You’re a life saver.
Not going to lie but I was very close to pulling the trigger on this and would have lost a lot of hard earned money that took many years to build up. I’m glad I listened to my good friends’ advice Mr Filipao, to ask on here before proceeding.

The seller has reached out and apologised for not doing the due diligence on the watch before listing.

It has always been a dream of mine to get a tropical dial of this reference or from 1680.
I thought that paying extra and finding the expert would alleviate some of the dangers in the vintage world - an important lesson was learnt.

Nevertheless, this is a marathon and half the fun is in the hunt. The quest continues!

Glad to hear this all ended up well for you - crisis averted. When you didn't reply to this thread, my fear was you had already purchased it and now manically running around trying to find a resolution.

And yes, never blindly trust a dealer who is selling a watch. They are incentivised to sell (and hence the commission) so they are always misaligned with the buyer.

Speaking frankly, their "apologies" are just BS and written so they can minimise tainting their reputation. I know this sounds harsh and I know the seller replied in this thread too but I give no second chances to sellers who are caught out like this - especially given the amount of $ we are talking about here.

I certainly wouldn't be going anywhere close to the seller going forward

I think its fair to include their original sales - courtesy of the other VRF and member Swaini for pointing it out. Beware.

https://www.wristicons.com/rolex-166...-tropical.html

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Curiouser and curiouser! I'm not all together enamored with the case used by Jose to illustrate how a correct set of serial numbers should look like with what appears to be cracks and pitting from a poorly executed case renovation. Cracking is visible where material has been added to the side of the lugs and the bottom of the left hand lug. And pitting on the surface of the lug. Of course it could be scratching that just looks like solidification cracking.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by MD.

Thanks for the info. That is very interesting indeed. Not sure what is going on to be honest. Do we suspect foul play here?

Mate,

Can I be brazen here and suggest you become a Pledge member? its $30 to the Board.

Jose is an incredible resource here (and via his own website) and his input might have saved you a lot of grieft and $$.

The donation helps this Board function and pay for its upkeep and keeps this community safe..

Please give my suggestion some consideration.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Mate,

Can I be brazen here and suggest you become a Pledge member? its $30 to the Board.

Jose is an incredible resource here (and via his own website) and his input might have saved you a lot of grieft and $$.

The donation helps this Board function and pay for its upkeep and keeps this community safe..

Please give my suggestion some consideration.

Second that, OP

Your azz was just saved. A watch matching the serial number was sold by Sothebys and it wasn't your watch. Damn dude... You're welcome.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Here's something for you to consider before you pull the trigger. First, a watch with the same case number 2926896 was sold at Sotheby's in 2016. At first glance, it's not the same watch (different dial, insert and crown guard):

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions.../lot.2211.html


Unfortunately, Sotheby's messed around with their archive so that now only one picture of the watch is available online. However, I saved all pictures from the original listing. The caseback is engraved with the same three digits. See for yourself. Then there is a discrepancy with the case number engravings which look nothing like the ones you would expect in this range.




Also, check the ouside of the caseback. The little hole above the S of OYSTER is missing.


Cheers
Jose

Wow. Just wow!

[GGGMT]

The little I have to offer can be summarized as: eeesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Filipão]

@pereztroika

As a Rolex vintage lover and "sort of" collector, thank you so much Sir.

Thank you.

[rootbeer7]

Bloody hell. Jose this is amazing. Totally fake, mixed up parts? What a mess.

[KY..]

Well this is certainly more fascinating than what a Stephen King or Agatha Christie mystery can offer me today.
If that $100k+ watch being sold by a pretty well known dealer is actually a full blown fake then we are all in big trouble moving forward.

[TimeToGo]

.
@pereztroika - Well Done!
.
Looks like you are scaring the children...

[swaini3]

Sad, I wish i can take a closer look at the certificates. imagine if they're genuine and actually belonged to the sotheby's watch.

[Noahgraph]

You just got to love Jose Pereztroika. Always makes me smile with his crazy points of view. Incredible.

[Haywood_Milton]

Nice work, Jose.

OP, will you please draw the seller's attention to this thread?

It will be very interesting to read their response.