Rolex Chronograph (I dont think so)

[T5AUS]

but would apprecitate an opinion or three. The dial looks like it has Rolex on it, the inside back cover has a Rolex logo but there is nothing on the movement. I just dont see enough of this kind of thing but I would have thought it should have Rolex markings on the movement. What puzzles me is, if it's a fake, and a very old fake at that, why didn't the fakers put a name on the movement to make it more convincing. Did early Rolex chronos use none Rolex movements? There are no marks between the lugs.
Thanks guys

[SLS]

I have never seen anything like that before, and that caseback???....regardless, you would be taking on one heck of resto job on that one!
~Scott

[jdc]

seems to be a lot of writing on the dial to be a Rolex

[Welshwatchman]

It just seems to me to be far to rough (especially the movement) to have ever been an original Rolex.

[abr68]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

It just seems to me to be far to rough (especially the movement) to have ever been an original Rolex.

Paul,
I do agree!
Besides that I´m really scratching my head..
Reason is that the dial is somehow near some other real Vintage chronos and also what could be the reason to get a watch faked in that way?
If so, it would have been done in such a way that the watch overall looks much better because it would bring a hell of $$$$$$$

[archaeofreak]

remember, there were some very early fakes made...

[bodybump]

somebody left the watch inside the washing machine..

[Dalton]

Is that pop a off caseback? the engraving on the inside of it looks fishy. too rough,and bit off center. The crown looks to be closer to the left than the right of the ribbons edge. could be a fake. Also, counterfitters will also fake vintage stuff, not just the modern.

[Dalton]

and it's plated.

[Tools]

Interesting example..

Rolex did make those unusual flat pushers in the 1940's... But here's what's wrong..

. As mentioned, there is too much writing on the dial. Early Chronos usually only said Chronograph.

. the case-back is neither a bubble back, nor a screw back, so suspicious, and as has been said, the markings are 'fishy"

. There is no signing on the movement.. Even though Rolex did use Valjoux movements, they always modified and inscribed them with Rolex badging.

[jdc]

also noticed that the word chronogragh is spelt with an "e" at the end. This may have been the case with earlier models. I cannot see properly but how is anti magnetic spelt? To match you would expect anti magnetique to keep it in the same language.

[TheVTCGuy]

I looked through my Rolex book, found nothing that resembles that model, I am sorry to say, I think it's an early fake. Hope you didn't spend a lot on it. Still, it's kind of a neat find!

[postiff]

Here is the oldest one I have 1954 6294. As said the engraving looks off center.







Danny


<>

[jm433]

Yeah. I think this is a fake. I have a "chonometre suisse" watch from the 1930s with a Valjoux movement that looks quite similar though mine is a one button. There were a lot of generic Swiss watches made around that time with similar badging. Not sure what to make of this one saying "chronographe suisse" but some may have said this.

There was a watch similar to this one in the last Antiquorum auction with a two button chronograph movement.

I think somebody added the Rolex to give the watch some added cache. Perhaps even years ago given the wear on the Rolex name

[T5AUS]

Thanks Martin, Scott, Paul, Axel, Justin, Dalton, Larry, Paul(2), Danny & James for the input, what people are saying seems to echo my thoughts on it really, but one always has that niggling doubt when looking at stuff like this. As you say Danny, the engraving does look off centre and yes Dalton, it is only a plated case with a pop off back, (although I do have a vintage Rolex dress watch from the 50's with a pop off back) Also, as Martin says, the dial does seem a bit too fussy for a Rolex. I don't own it although it is available but I think I will pass, it just doesn't feel right and what people have said here convinces me even more that it's a "wrongun"

(I did post this same question on Timezone Vintage as they do have some top vintage guys on there, but they also have such an archaic photo loading set up, I gave up in the end after three attempts)