New here, need a little advice from the experts, please.

[dpd3672]

Hello,

I recently sold a 1680 Submariner on Ebay that I bought used about 10 years ago. I was told by the buyer, who seems a little sketchy, that the dial was fake. When I bought the watch, I was assured the dial was genuine. I'm wondering if anyone here could help me verify if the dial is real or fake. The buyer had the dial removed, and is pressing me for a partial refund. I'm okay with refunding him some money, provided the dial is actually fake.

I've attached links to my Ebay auction and to some photos I took of the dial.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Auction Link

Here's a couple more photos if I can post them:

[TimeToGo]

Welcome to the Forum!

Disclosure - I am not an expert but I did stay at Holiday Inn last night...

The dial appears genuine to me, possibly a Mk-1 1680 dial and/or a replacement dial.

Note that your watch is a 1972/73 production year (according to your description on the listing / I can't tell the serial numbers on your picture) and this dial is not original to the watch, replaced at some point. The 72/73 production years was the "Red Sub era."

In your listing, it appears the package includes the original paper, that is a big plus! Maybe the buyer is installing a red dial and wants more money from you. If he is not happy, have him return the watch to you for a refund.

Here are some discussions of 1680 white dials:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=274555

[powerfunk]

I'm also not an expert but seems more likely that it's a service dial rather than a fake.

Hope you're not becoming a victim of another "partial refund scam:"
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...al+refund+scam

Good luck. Also, if it were me, and I really did receive a Submariner with a FAKE DIAL...let's say I'd be asking for a lot more than a partial refund!!

[dpd3672]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

I'm also not an expert but seems more likely that it's a service dial rather than a fake.

Hope you're not becoming a victim of another "partial refund scam:"
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...al+refund+scam

Good luck. Also, if it were me, and I really did receive a Submariner with a FAKE DIAL...let's say I'd be asking for a lot more than a partial refund!!

Funny you should mention that.

The buyer is trying to do exactly that. He originally sent an email demanding a $400+ refund, or to tie up funds with a Paypal complaint. A few emails later, he stated he'll return the dial for a partial refund of $200. He's got very low feedback, but I contacted the other sellers he's done business with, and he's tried the same thing with at least 6 of them.

Looks like I'll be forwarding this information to Ebay. I'm going to respond to him with a link to this thread, so if any more of you concur that this is an authentic Rolex dial, please post...I can use all the ammunition I can get!

Thanks for the responses so far, sincerely, I'm a longtime watch collector, but fairly new to selling them.

[pdoukas]

Also not an expert, but had owned a white sub with a mk1 dial. In my opinion, that is a genuine mk1 dial. The l is centered under the crown, and all of the other tidbits look correct. However, looking at the auction, everyone is correct, the original dial should have been a red sub dial.

[dpd3672]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

Also not an expert, but had owned a white sub with a mk1 dial. In my opinion, that is a genuine mk1 dial. The l is centered under the crown, and all of the other tidbits look correct. However, looking at the auction, everyone is correct, the original dial should have been a red sub dial.

I did mention that, after the details, in the auction listing.

This watch falls into the "Red Submariner" serial number and date range, so it would be correct for a restoration, if you've got the right dial. I'm not suggesting or implying that anyone would or should pass anything off as something it isn't, but the fact is, you can just about double the value of one of these watches by swapping out the dial, if you happen across one.

The buyer doesn't have an issue with the dial being a Rolex replacement, he's claiming it's 100% fake. I believe my listing is accurate, describing the watch as having had service once during the time I owned it, and likely before, due to the replacement bracelet.

[TSW]

Welcome to TRF!

[dpd3672]

Originally Posted by TSW

Welcome to TRF!

Thanks, I've been collecting watches for about 20 years now, only recently stumbled onto these forums.

I mostly focus on Omegas (Speedmasters, Seamasters, and Flightmasters), but I've had a Datejust, GMT, Submariner, and Air King over the years.

I loves me a good tool watch!

[jdsal]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

I'm also not an expert but seems more likely that it's a service dial rather than a fake.

Hope you're not becoming a victim of another "partial refund scam:"
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...al+refund+scam

Good luck. Also, if it were me, and I really did receive a Submariner with a FAKE DIAL...let's say I'd be asking for a lot more than a partial refund!!

X2,
Full refund or nothing.
You should have no problem finding someone that would be happy paying you that same amount plus some!

[springer]

The serial number on your Submariner 1680 is 368XXXX which places in close to the end for the red Submariner production era. Most research material places the end of the "red" era at around serial number 38XXXXX - 39XXXXX. There are definitely transitional Submariner dials around the time frame for these serial numbers, which you will see with either a white or red dial - but the red dial seems to be the most prominent.

There are many variables to consider when trying to determine if "anything" is genuine or counterfeit. Quality of the product, originality, age, tool marks or absence of tool marks, wear etc. Most counterfeiters are content to have a counterfeit close to the original to fool most of the prospective buyers. Some are perfectionists and some are lazy and go about their trade haphazardly.

In the past, I have seen counterfeit Rolex dials that exhibit traits from more than one dial style - which I believe is what we are seeing here in the 1680 dial being discussed.

The dial in your photo appears and exhibits characteristics, especially the dial coronet, from Mark II or Mark III red Submariner dials. This style of dial coronet was not used on the early white Submariner dials, and personally, I have not found any white Subs that use this style of dial coronet. Also, the printing of the dial is not indicative of quality printing found on the Rolex dials, as it appears to be "heavy" and a bit sloppy. Lastly, the dial appears new, not unlike most counterfeit dials meant to fool unsuspecting buyers.

My opinion is that the dial on the Submariner 1680 being discussed here is not an original Rolex dial.

Below is a photo from an original 1680 Submariner circa 1974 serial number 38XXXXX, wearing an original circa 1974 93150 bracelet.

[topcat30093]

Sorry, but I am not an expert on the dial.

But two things struck me.

1) Is the date straight, or is it just the angle of the camera.

2) Why, when you are trying to sell something, do the photos appear so dark, is it because you are trying to hide something??? Surely if you wish to sell an item, you would like to show the item at its best!

[financeman]

I am curious to see the rest of the expert opinions on this.

[pdoukas]

Originally Posted by springer

The serial number on your Submariner 1680 is 368XXXX which places in close to the end for the red Submariner production era. Most research material places the end of the "red" era at around serial number 38XXXXX - 39XXXXX. There are definitely transitional Submariner dials around the time frame for these serial numbers, which you will see with either a white or red dial - but the red dial seems to be the most prominent.

There are many variables to consider when trying to determine if "anything" is genuine or counterfeit. Quality of the product, originality, age, tool marks or absence of tool marks, wear etc. Most counterfeiters are content to have a counterfeit close to the original to fool most of the prospective buyers. Some are perfectionists and some are lazy and go about their trade haphazardly.

In the past, I have seen counterfeit Rolex dials that exhibit traits from more than one dial style - which I believe is what we are seeing here in the 1680 dial being discussed.

The dial in your photo appears and exhibits characteristics, especially the dial coronet, from Mark II or Mark III red Submariner dials. This style of dial coronet was not used on the early white Submariner dials, and personally, I have not found any white Subs that use this style of dial coronet. Also, the printing of the dial is not indicative of quality printing found on the Rolex dials, as it appears to be "heavy" and a bit sloppy. Lastly, the dial appears new, not unlike most counterfeit dials meant to fool unsuspecting buyers.

My opinion is that the dial on the Submariner 1680 being discussed here is not an original Rolex dial.

Below is a photo from an original 1680 Submariner circa 1974 serial number 38XXXXX, wearing an original circa 1974 93150 bracelet.

Hey John,

I used the dial variant chart here http://www.watchblog.dk/rolex1680.html to compare his dial. To me, and again I'm no expert, the mk1 looks really similar. Did I miss something and can you please point it out so we can all learn from this please.

Thanks so much,

Pete

[dpd3672]

Originally Posted by topcat30093

Sorry, but I am not an expert on the dial.

But two things struck me.

1) Is the date straight, or is it just the angle of the camera.

2) Why, when you are trying to sell something, do the photos appear so dark, is it because you are trying to hide something??? Surely if you wish to sell an item, you would like to show the item at its best!

Sorry, I had a real hard time photographing the dial. I was using a macro lens, to get detail and sharpness, but the depth of field is only a mm or two, and it was hand held, so getting the photos to come out was a bit tricky. The shiny dial against the white background was also playing hell with the camera's meter, and I kept getting underexposed shots so I used flash at a slight angle. I have a light box, that I use for photographing small metal objects, but it's not set up, and I was trying to get some quick shots before I went to work.

[springer]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

Hey John,

I used the dial variant chart here http://www.watchblog.dk/rolex1680.html to compare his dial. To me, and again I'm no expert, the mk1 looks really similar. Did I miss something and can you please point it out so we can all learn from this please.

Thanks so much,

Pete

I do not see that dial on that page Pete.

jP

[pdoukas]

Hey John,

I got your message and I'll reply tonight. I'm on my way to Vegas for a week for a class so when I get to my hotel this evening ill post my observations.

For all intents and purposes, I believe now that John may be correct. I have images of my MK1 white and will post them along with the ops when I get to a real workstation.

Pete

[TimeToGo]

That is very interesting John.

Can you refer to the link below and look at thread numbers 32 and 38; and compare it to the dial on this thread?

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...ht=1680&page=2

[pdoukas]

Oh wow now I'm really confused. I gotta get on the road. Will look at this tonight when I get settled in.

[marcello pisani]

Pete was right : it's a genuine mk1 dial for " white 1680 " made by Lemrich as you can see from the correct numbers punched in the back ( " 121 ..... " )

[springer]

Marcello, while the dial blank could be genuine, the dial is not - although I respect all opinions to disagree. Further, without rehashing what I have already written, I do not believe Rolex dials came with the uneven inking of the minute markers as shown in my photo below. Notice how some touch the outer edges of the dial, and some do not. Further, this is the same counterfeit dial that is being advertised on the web site that plays host to many counterfeit dials. The dial being discussed in this thread appears as new, not one that would have been in a watch for 40 years.

Below, again, is the dial being discussed here. Pay particular attention to the maker lines in the red circles - they are not consistent in length. Below this photo is the "Mark I" dial and lastly a counterfeit 1680 dial.

[marcello pisani]

the dial is ok : just see the perfect alignement , fonts and mutual spacing of the letters printed on the dial.
the minute lines don't look to have a consistent lenght due to the position of the dial in the picture ... that is not flat but sloping.

[springer]

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

the dial is ok : just see the perfect alignement , fonts and mutual spacing of the letters printed on the dial.
the minute lines don't look to have a consistent lenght due to the position of the dial in the picture ... that is not flat but sloping.

" just see the perfect alignement , fonts and mutual spacing of the letters printed on the dial."

The precision counterfeiters do the same and strive to make it look as original as possible. Some even go as far as aging dials, cases etc.

"the minute lines don't look to have a consistent lenght due to the position of the dial in the picture ... that is not flat but sloping."

I can't tell if you are serious, but it did make me chuckle. The minute marker lines clearly do not touch the end of the dial like those on the right side.

The seller will have to make up his own mind concerning the dial being genuine or other since he must ultimately rectify this with the buyer.

jP

[TimeToGo]

Based on the pictures provided, John has done an incredible job in pointing out these inconsistencies.

I hope the OP can come up and either post better pictures and/or comment whether the minute marks run all the way to the edge.

This is a great discussion folks!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Marcello
I was going with service dial because while the dial does share many characteristics with the mk I such as closed 6's, same spacing on the SCOC print, lack of serif on SUBMARINER, and finally what I would call a short bottom stroke on the "2" in 200 meters, the coronet of the dial in question and the mk I dial you have in your picture are entirely different.
The coronet of the dial in question has shorter spikes on the crown, the dark part in the coronet is smaller, and the serif on top of the "L" in ROLEX would not fit in the dark part of the coronet.
Contrast this with the Mk I dial in your picture with taller spikes to the crown, a much more crisp appearing coronet, and the dark part of the coronet is much larger and could easily fit the top of the serif of the "L" in ROLEX inside it.
I believe the dial is authentic just looking for some guidance as to why the coronets are not the same.

I must say that discussing and learning about matte dials from the 70's is a source of passion for me. As always Marcello thank you for your help.

[springer]

Below is the dial from the original post, the dial Marcello posted and a photo of a counterfeit dial. The first two are magnified significantly. Notice the difference in quality in the printing and how some of the letters are almost filled in on the dial we have been discussing here (the first pic) when compared to the genuine dial in the second pic. If you go back to the photo of the dial we are discussing, you will see how the letters "R" "P" and "A" in PERPETUAL and DATE are almost filled in like that found on the counterfeit dial depicted below. Compare the "S" in OYSTER in both photos. The difference in the length of the coronet arms are not the same either. The dial in the first photo is clearly the same as the counterfeit dial.

Lastly, notice the minute markers in the first photo. They clearly are not "broken off" and do not go all the way to the edge of the dial.

John, great talking with you tonight, be safe down there too!

[Mark020]

The printing of 660 is not kosher (as well) imho. I'd say it is a reprinted dial on an original plate.

[mattokeol]

the coronet of the dial in question and the mk I dial you have in your picture are entirely different.

[dpd3672]

Thank you all, again, for the feedback.

Based on what I've seen posted here, I believe I have a genuine Rolex dial with a non-factory reprinted dial. I'll complete the partial refund to the buyer, and will try to get some better photos up tomorrow, if for no other reason than to contribute what I can to the discussion.

Glad I found you guys, there's a lot of good information here.

[Beaumont Miller II]

I would not be so fast with the partial refund. John enjoyed visiting with you as well.