A pictorial melangerie of my 16610 ....

[YuppieKid]

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...view=slideshow

[sharif]

Great pics....nothing like classic Rolex pics, from a proud owner. Looks terrific. The Sub will always hold a special place in my heart.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Excellent slide show!

Thanks for sharing!

[KJacques]

What is a melangerie?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by KJacques

What is a melangerie?

A melangerie is a collage!

I hope it helped!

[Felly Jr.]

Originally Posted by KJacques

What is a melangerie?

I think perhaps he meant to say menagerie.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Felly Jr.

I think perhaps he meant to say menagerie.

Oh la la!

Ménagerie à trois!

[nimm12]

this is a FAKE rolex... to the untrained eyes, it looks genuine , but one look at the case, crown, bracelet, clasp, dial , i can tell its a FAKE ...

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by nimm12

this is a FAKE rolex... to the untrained eyes, it looks genuine , but one look at the case, crown, bracelet, clasp, dial , i can tell its a FAKE ...

Now, now!

There is nothing about that Sub Date 16610 that tells me it should NOT be real.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by nimm12

this is a FAKE rolex... to the untrained eyes, it looks genuine , but one look at the case, crown, bracelet, clasp, dial , i can tell its a FAKE ...

Could you substantiate that statement of yours with some evidence? That watch looks pretty genuine to me.

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by nimm12

this is a FAKE rolex... to the untrained eyes, it looks genuine , but one look at the case, crown, bracelet, clasp, dial , i can tell its a FAKE ...

[Texsubmariner]

Nice pics! Congrats.

[Ed Rooney]

I guess we all have untrained eyes.

I do not see anything that would lead me to believe this Sub is fake.

Clasp code checks out with the age of the watch.

Pearl is good.

Font is good.

and so on.

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

I guess we all have untrained eyes.

I do not see anything that would lead me to believe this Sub is fake.

Clasp code checks out with the age of the watch.

Pearl is good.

Font is good.

and so on.

I wouldn't even give him the time of day. I know it's REAL because I had it inspected by a Rolex certified watchmaker at my local AD. He opened it, examined the movement, etc. Not to mention, that I bought the watch from John Brozek (qualitytyme.net).

....

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Anyway, cool slide show.

Could you please explain how to make such a slide show and how to go about sharing it?

It would be cool to have more of this kind here!

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

Anyway, cool slide show.

Could you please explain how to make such a slide show and how to go about sharing it?

It would be cool to have more of this kind here!

account. Once you upload the pictures from your computer, you then choose an album and then click on the "slide show" link in that particular album. That's all there is to it.

Thanks.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Thanks. I will try that out some day.

[nimm12]

i am surprised the following obvious tell tale signs escaped your eyes:

coronet print on the dial looks distorted (too fat)
lugs looks weird
coronet on crown looks fake
font on dial print looks fake (eg look at 'S' in SUBMARINER and 'N' in CHRONOMETER)
luminova filling on minute hand looks too thick
number 6 on the date windows looks weird
metallic paint on bezel looks too thick (0 in '10','20'...to '50' looks different)
circular indices metal surrounding luminova is too thick
matt finishing on bracelet looks weird

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by nimm12

i am surprised the following obvious tell tale signs escaped your eyes:

coronet print on the dial looks distorted (too fat)
lugs looks weird
coronet on crown looks fake
font on dial print looks fake (eg look at 'S' in SUBMARINER and 'N' in CHRONOMETER)
luminova filling on minute hand looks too thick
number 6 on the date windows looks weird
metallic paint on bezel looks too thick (0 in '10','20'...to '50' looks different)
circular indices metal surrounding luminova is too thick
matt finishing on bracelet looks weird

STFU!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by nimm12

i am surprised the following obvious tell tale signs escaped your eyes:

coronet print on the dial looks distorted (too fat)
lugs looks weird
coronet on crown looks fake
font on dial print looks fake (eg look at 'S' in SUBMARINER and 'N' in CHRONOMETER)
luminova filling on minute hand looks too thick
number 6 on the date windows looks weird
metallic paint on bezel looks too thick (0 in '10','20'...to '50' looks different)
circular indices metal surrounding luminova is too thick
matt finishing on bracelet looks weird

Sorry, with all due respect, I don't share your opinion.

Also, please look up and check out who the seller of the SS Sub is:

John E. Brozek, author of "The Rolex Report".

He would hardly put his reputation at stake by selling a knock-off, would he?

If you want to discuss this further, do it via PM and not here.

[nimm12]

***********If you want to discuss this further, do it via PM and not here.**********


i dont understand why you are discussing it here in the first place. anyway its up to the owner to decide what he wants to do to the watch - to get it certified by a RSC , or someone outside of RSC

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Okay, I did some PM'ing.

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by nimm12

i dont understand why you are discussing it here in the first place.

He's discussing it here because you brought it up here - simple enough for you, sport?

Looking at the quality of the photos, the resolution's not great - you can see diagnonals like the edges of the numbering coming out as steps instead of straight lines. Also, some parts of the shots are overexposed.

Both of these will explain the issues you have identified. The most we can accuse Yuppiekid of is poor photography/post-processing, so ease up.

And yes, you can take this as a warning.

[nimm12]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

He's discussing it here because you brought it up here - simple enough for you, sport?

Looking at the quality of the photos, the resolution's not great - you can see diagnonals like the edges of the numbering coming out as steps instead of straight lines. Also, some parts of the shots are overexposed.

Both of these will explain the issues you have identified. The most we can accuse Yuppiekid of is poor photography/post-processing, so ease up.

And yes, you can take this as a warning.

wow, that's threatening

[SSD]

Well, I'll say it again: Thanks for the slide show Yuppiekid, I enjoyed it and look forward to more! I like the slideshow concept for the forum, too.

BTW mine is equipped with the 93250 braclet, and I was mildly surprised to see Rolex stopped marking the links with the model #. Just wanted to point out another oddity before it slipped my feeble mind...

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by SSD

Well, I'll say it again: Thanks for the slide show Yuppiekid, I enjoyed it and look forward to more! I like the slideshow concept for the forum, too.

BTW mine is equipped with the 93250 braclet, and I was mildly surprised to see Rolex stopped marking the links with the model #. Just wanted to point out another oddity before it slipped my feeble mind...

[Defiancekofb]

Since the lugs are exterior, does that mean the lug length on your watch is substantially longer than say the lugs on a rolex that has hidden lugs?

[YuppieKid]

Originally Posted by Defiancekofb

Since the lugs are exterior, does that mean the lug length on your watch is substantially longer than say the lugs on a rolex that has hidden lugs?

[Defiancekofb]

Exterior



Opposed to lugs that are hidden near the caseback.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Defiancekofb

Since the lugs are exterior, does that mean the lug length on your watch is substantially longer than say the lugs on a rolex that has hidden lugs?

No, they're the same length.