ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Cutiger1 · 2 May 2020, 01:30 PM

Hello guys. I have the option to buy a 1972 long E 1675 for $9k. The watch appears to be in good condition. My concern is that the bezel insert appears too “clean” to be original to the watch. Seller has no paperwork; only the original box. I am attaching a few pictures. Tell me what you think and what else I should be looking for. This would be my first vintage piece.

rootbeer7 · 2 May 2020, 05:35 PM

Better pictures!

Andad · 2 May 2020, 05:39 PM

Pix?

Vincent65 · 2 May 2020, 06:29 PM

It might well be OK. But that's about all anyone can say, with those images.

zapokee · 2 May 2020, 09:49 PM

Looks like a replacement insert (thin font, vivid colors) and bracelet (solid D-link Jubilee, no stretch). The plots on the dial look creamy/faded, so may be original. As per others, close-up pics are needed for further judgment.

Cutiger1 · 2 May 2020, 10:22 PM

Thanks Zapokee and others. I am going to try to get some better pics today. If the insert and bracelet are replacement, how much do you guys think that devalues the watch? $9k still good price or not?

Cutiger1 · 3 May 2020, 01:05 AM

Here are a few better pics, I hope. Let me know what you guys think.

charlitos · 3 May 2020, 01:44 AM

Bad pic. But service hands, bracelet, insert. No for me.

Dan S · 3 May 2020, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlitos

Bad pic. But service hands, bracelet, insert. No for me.

It's not a watch for me either, but $9k isn't a bad price if the OP likes it.

Tools · 3 May 2020, 02:29 AM

If you are looking for a 40 year old watch to be "original", it may be an uphill climb.

The bracelet on this one is fake.

springer · 3 May 2020, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

If you are looking for a 40 year old watch to be "original", it may be an uphill climb.

The bracelet on this one is fake.

I agree with Larry regarding the "fake" bracelet. Check on the stamped coronet on the inner clasp blade by the scroll work. Very non-Rolex looking coronet.

1watch · 3 May 2020, 05:32 AM

$9k is the first clue something’s not right here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RLX-lvr · 6 May 2020, 11:00 AM

Yes, too Cheap.
Bracelet is fake as said earlier.
1972 is too late for that dial, and better look at the case and serial as well.

Move away from that watch.

Cutiger1 · 7 May 2020, 05:24 AM

Thanks to all. I have definitely moved away from that watch. Still in the market though. So if you guys come across anything or have recommendations, please let me know.

Cutiger1 · 7 May 2020, 09:57 AM

Hi guys. I wanted to get your opinions on this one. It’s a 1978.

Tom1675 · 7 May 2020, 10:23 AM

As with the first watch you'll need to provide better pics. From 30k feet, the watch looks like there has been some moisture inside, the lume is rugged. Take your time and get great shots. Also, get the serial number don't tell us the year...

Cutiger1 · 7 May 2020, 11:04 AM

Sorry about the photos. They’re much sharper on my phone, but when I upload to the forum the quality diminishes. Here’s another one that I am considering. 3.2M serial.

springer · 8 May 2020, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cutiger1

Sorry about the photos. They’re much sharper on my phone, but when I upload to the forum the quality diminishes. Here’s another one that I am considering. 3.2M serial.

The dial has been replaced with a Mark VI dial. It should have a Mark II dial if the serial number is 3.2 million.

Tom1675 · 8 May 2020, 01:26 AM

OP, what do you think? Does this dial match that serial #? Does the insert look correct?

2 May 2020, 01:30 PM	#1
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Opinions - 1972 GMT 1675 Long E Hello guys. I have the option to buy a 1972 long E 1675 for $9k. The watch appears to be in good condition. My concern is that the bezel insert appears too “clean” to be original to the watch. Seller has no paperwork; only the original box. I am attaching a few pictures. Tell me what you think and what else I should be looking for. This would be my first vintage piece. Attached Images

2 May 2020, 05:35 PM	#2
rootbeer7 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: london Posts: 6,157	Better pictures! __________________ @imrootbeer7

2 May 2020, 05:39 PM	#3
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,534	Pix? __________________ E

2 May 2020, 06:29 PM	#4
Vincent65 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Switzerland Posts: 14,298	It might well be OK. But that's about all anyone can say, with those images. __________________

3 May 2020, 01:05 AM	#7
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Here are a few better pics, I hope. Let me know what you guys think. Attached Images

2 May 2020, 09:49 PM	#5
zapokee "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Japan Posts: 4,367	Looks like a replacement insert (thin font, vivid colors) and bracelet (solid D-link Jubilee, no stretch). The plots on the dial look creamy/faded, so may be original. As per others, close-up pics are needed for further judgment.

2 May 2020, 10:22 PM	#6
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Thanks Zapokee and others. I am going to try to get some better pics today. If the insert and bracelet are replacement, how much do you guys think that devalues the watch? $9k still good price or not?

3 May 2020, 01:44 AM	#8
charlitos "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: España Posts: 179	Bad pic. But service hands, bracelet, insert. No for me.

3 May 2020, 02:29 AM	#10
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,515	If you are looking for a 40 year old watch to be "original", it may be an uphill climb. The bracelet on this one is fake. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

3 May 2020, 05:32 AM	#12
1watch "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: US Posts: 657	$9k is the first clue something’s not right here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6 May 2020, 11:00 AM	#13
RLX-lvr "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Jeff Location: Toronto Posts: 1,947	Yes, too Cheap. Bracelet is fake as said earlier. 1972 is too late for that dial, and better look at the case and serial as well. Move away from that watch.

7 May 2020, 05:24 AM	#14
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Thanks to all. I have definitely moved away from that watch. Still in the market though. So if you guys come across anything or have recommendations, please let me know.

7 May 2020, 09:57 AM	#15
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Opinions on this 1675 Hi guys. I wanted to get your opinions on this one. It’s a 1978. Attached Images

7 May 2020, 10:23 AM	#16
Tom1675 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Tom Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,187	As with the first watch you'll need to provide better pics. From 30k feet, the watch looks like there has been some moisture inside, the lume is rugged. Take your time and get great shots. Also, get the serial number don't tell us the year...

7 May 2020, 11:04 AM	#17
Cutiger1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2020 Location: Simpsonville SC Posts: 8	Opinions 1675 Sorry about the photos. They’re much sharper on my phone, but when I upload to the forum the quality diminishes. Here’s another one that I am considering. 3.2M serial. Attached Images

8 May 2020, 01:26 AM	#19
Tom1675 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Tom Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,187	OP, what do you think? Does this dial match that serial #? Does the insert look correct?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)